Latest update April 26th, 2026 12:45 AM
Latest News
UNREASONABLE
I am hearing a lot of chat from women’s rights groups about the increases in salaries that the Cabinet voted for itself and members of Parliament. But I did not hear a squeak out of those voices when Haitian nationals were recently denied entry into Guyana because they did not have adequate funds or what is known as “show money” or did not have anyone there to receive them at the airport.
I do not know if our immigration authorities who now seem to be becoming extremely vigilant understand that the discretion they are exercising must be done in accordance with the law, including the treaties and agreements to which Guyana is a signatory.
Haiti is neither a member of the regional Common Market or of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy. It is however a full member of Caribbean Community and therefore its nationals are entitled to rights derived from membership of that body. In 2007 the Heads of Conference of the Caribbean Community agreed that nationals of members of the Community are entitled to unhindered admission to members states for a minimum period of six months. This is Community law and was affirmed in the decision of the Shanique Myrie case which was adequately ventilated throughout the Region.
There are only two exceptions to this automatic six months entry for Caricom nationals. The first is if the person is deemed an undesirable and the second is if the person will represent “a charge on public funds” that is if the government of the receiving will have to bear the cost of providing some service be it medical, accommodation etc. to the person concerned.
If the person was deemed an undesirable, it is on the denying State to prove that the person with either a threat to public safety, public morals or public health. Neither was given as the reason why the Haitians were denied entry.
In the Shanique Myrie case, the CCJ did hold that it is reasonable in deciding whether a person would become a charge on public funds for the authorities to assess whether the person has sufficient funds to cover their stay or whether funds can be made available to cover the person’s stay in Guyana.
Reports indicate that the Haitians had come to stay two weeks and the most money any of them had was G$40,000. How was this deemed inadequate when there are Guyanese who survive on less and when it is possible with money transfer services and other means of receiving money from overseas for the Haitians to have access to more funds.
No Caricom national can be denied entry on the spurious grounds that the person does not have enough “show money” or insufficient funds on their person to cover the length of stay. Those grounds for denying someone entry have long been dispensed with as a legal basis for denying entry to someone to enter Guyana.
The question is not whether the person had enough funds on his person to cover his or her stay but whether such funds can be made available to the person during his stay and whether the absence of such funds would mean that the person is at risk of becoming a charge on public funds.
The Haitians were deported on the grounds of not having enough money to cover the stay in Guyana. That is not a legitimate ground for denial of entry under Community law. What would constitute a legitimate ground for denial was if the non-availability of funds would constitute a charge on public funds.
I have not heard of persons coming from North America and Europe being asked to show that they have sufficient funds to cover their stay in Guyana. And those persons do not have any definitive right of entry for six months as do Caricom nationals. I know of many persons from overseas whose stay is usually covered entirely by the persons whom they are staying with.
So why should we be turning back Caricom nationals from Haiti? That is unreasonable.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.