Praying for the sins of an institution

Mar 14, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – I have always considered prayers offered at public events as a form of public communication. On the other hand, prayers made in silence and privately are a form of private communication.
The former, that is public communication, is a protected right under the Constitution. That to me guarantees the right to conscience and the right to freedom of expression. It means that a person of faith had a right to his or her belief, to express that belief and to propagate it to others.
A pastor recently evoked controversy in his prayer at the Annual Police Officer’s Conference. He prayed for the sins of the organization. And he asked forgiveness, on behalf of everyone, for some sins which are widely believed to be committed by ‘bad eggs’ within the Guyana Police Force.
It would appear natural for a pastor to pray for correction of wrongs within any institution and not only to give thanks and praise for the good. Apparently, however, there was deep consternation over the pastor’s asking for the Police to be rid of bribery and corruption.
No one familiar with the Guyana Police Force would want to claim that such practices do not exist within the institution. Those who pretend that there is no corruption in the Police Force are burying their heads in the sand.
The public is under no illusion about this matter. And there can be little to complain over the fact that a pastor is asking for divine intervention to rid the Guyana Police Force of such ill-deeds.
But not everyone was pleased by the prayer. It appears that soon after the event, the pastor’s employment as Chaplain was terminated. But subsequently this decision was rescinded, after a top political operative is said to have indicated that he saw nothing wrong with the prayer.
There was no indication that any instruction was given to rescind the dismissal. But given the way things work in Guyana, it is not unusual for the opinion of a top political operative to be instrumental in the decision to rescind the pastor’s dismissal.
But why should anyone be displeased if this was indeed the case? Why does it have to constitute political interference for a politician to express an opinion about the dismissal of someone?
The Constitution of Guyana guarantees freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. At it is the duty of our political leaders to ensure that these rights are not violated. It is patently wrong for anyone to be dismissed simply because that person implied something which others viewed as a criticism of their organization.
Those who do not respect democracy may find it impossible to respect the right of someone to due process. That pastor should not have been summarily dismissed. He should have been afforded a hearing and, even if found guilty of a wrong, should have been entitled to give cause why any punishment should not be mitigated, including through the offering of an apology.
Dismissing someone arbitrarily is a violation of due process and, in the particular case, a violation of the right to holding a belief and expressing that belief – freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. And there would not have been anything averse with government intervention. The government has a right to point out to the police hierarchy what it considers as indiscretions involving the violation of the rights of individuals.
It does not constitute political interference for it to be suggested to the police that there was nothing wrong with what the pastor said. And it is not political interference for the government to demand that the rights of person be respected.
Trade unions have been known to appeal to politicians to remedy wrongs or to correct injustices. Not many alleged political interference when persons were arbitrarily dismissed under the former regime. But when political appointees are moved, as is part of convention, there is a big hue and cry about ethnic cleansing.
No one shouted political interference when the politicians of the APNU+AFC decided to place thousands of sugar workers on the breadline. This was a political decision and not one made at the level of the Board of Directors of the sugar corporation. The Commission of Inquiry into the sugar industry did not even recommend closure. So it had to be a political decision to do so.
When it comes to protecting people’s freedoms, the political directorate has every right to intervene to ensure due process and fair play. But that is something those who wanted to quash a democratic elections may find difficult to understand and accept.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---