Is this the way consultations are supposed to be carried out?

Dec 04, 2021 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Kaieteur News – Thank you for providing me the opportunity and space to comment on the recent visit of the high level team to Aishalton on Saturday the 29th November, 2021, concerning the signed agreement between GGMC, the Rupununi Miners Association, Romanex, and Aurous. The visit came after the SRDC wrote a letter to the Minister and published a press release denouncing the agreement as being signed in violation of our right to free, prior, and informed consent.
The November 29th meeting was framed as a “consultation” over the mining agreement. “Consultation” is a distorted word, especially by the authorities that be, including the mining companies and politicians. The meeting on 29th November cannot be considered a consultation, as we were provided with no prior information or time to prepare for the meeting. The Toshao was not even afforded the respect of advance notice for the meeting. Instead, on Friday the 28th November, a regional official visited some communities and told residents to say they support the mining in Marudi and to say that 90% of our people mine in Marudi, when we know that is not true. Agents of the regional official were walking around our villages in the night to have documents signed. Is this the way ‘consultations’ are supposed to be carried out?
At the meeting in Aishalton on November 29th, we heard the principle of Free Prior and Informed Consent mentioned several times. The principle of FPIC was similarly invoked by our Head of State at COP26 in Glasgow. These speeches sound inspiring, but what is happening on the ground is a horse of a totally different colour. Our communities have still yet to even receive any copy of the signed agreement, let alone have any meaningful opportunity to participate in the negotiation and drafting of the agreement. Indeed, respecting our right to FPIC is impossible now that the agreement is already signed; the only remedy now is to revoke the agreement and recommence the process of discussions over what activities to allow at Marudi with our effective participation.

Statements by government representatives in the meeting and in the press seem to suggest that a few is raising objections to this agreement because we do not want development for our communities. This is false. The issue is not about whether we want mining or not, or the possible benefits of mining, or about how many permits have been granted previously; the main issue is that this agreement, which authorizes activities on our traditional lands and will have direct impacts on our Indigenous Communities, was signed without our effective participation and inclusion in decision-making. Marudi is a sacred mountain and is in our Traditional Lands, in an area where we have a pending extension application, and we have formally claimed it as such as since the 1967 Amerindian Lands Commission Report.
It is true that there have been mining permits issued over Marudi for years, but any change in circumstances immediately demands meaningful and effective consultation with and the consent of the rightsholders, the Wapichan nao, before any agreement can be signed. Don’t put the cart before the horse and say that all is well because it is not. We have previously objected to decisions being made about Marudi without us and we will continue to do so once we are being excluded from decisions that will have lasting impacts on our villages.
The continued and serious violation of our rights as Indigenous Peoples to Free Prior Informed Consent and to effectively participate in decision-making affecting us violates the protections in the Constitution of Guyana for our cultural heritage and way of life, as well as the rights protected in international conventions incorporated therein. In addition, in 2018, the Caribbean Court of Justice, our nation’s highest court, explained that our “Constitution’s Preamble indicates the determination of the Guyanese people to ‘forge a system of governance that promotes concerted effort and broad-based participation in national decision-making in order to develop a viable economy and a harmonious community based on democratic values, social justice, fundamental human rights, and the rule of law’” (McEwan and Ors v. A.G. Guyana, [2018] CCJ 30 (AJ), para. 61, per PCCJ Saunders). Where was the broad-based participation when our lands, our sacred mountains, were again burdened by mining concessions and permits, and we learned of this via a Facebook post? Imagine if this were your house or your farm. Imagine if this was one of your sacred places, your church, mosque or temple. Where was the concern for social justice and the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples, we who must live with the direct consequences when the others have all moved on? In the same case, the CCJ further explained that our constitutional promise of equality prohibits the State from adopting measures “that treat a group of persons as second-class citizens or in any way that otherwise offends their dignity as human beings” (para. 66). This is how we have been made to feel; second-class citizens, whose dignity and rights have been trampled on, yet again.
I demand of the present and future governments to respect us as first-class citizens who deserve respect, especially for our rights to our lands, territories and natural resources, our right to be consulted in accordance with our traditional norms, and our right to give our consent, be it negative or positive, free of political interference, intimidation or any other form of coercion.
When are we going to stand up and ensure that human rights of Indigenous Peoples are respected and upheld?
Chief Tony James,
Wapichan Elder

---

---