Jagdeo needs to avail himself of a better understanding of the UNHCR process

Mar 24, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – It is now more than obvious that Bharrat Jagdeo has not taken the time to familiarize himself with the process that took place recently between the Government of Guyana and the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). Had he done so he would not have made certain comments about that process.

For example, he was quoted as saying that the statements made by the US-nominated representative, Laurence Helfer, did not reflect the position of the US government. He was also quoted as saying that he believes that US-nominated candidate was contaminated by political activists associated with the People’s National Congress (PNC)-led A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Opposition. “He is from New York and I think the contamination took place there… I can’t imagine how that would even surface there for anyone who’d done proper research except as if he was given a brief by APNU.” (Guyana Times of March 22nd 2024).

Jagdeo believes that the information alleging corruption within his government originated from the main parliamentary opposition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU). He even went as far as asking the UNHRC to make public its sources, an unthinkable proposition that further highlights his misunderstanding of the UNHRC process.

The media has projected the image of the sittings that took place last week as a form of interrogation, by the UNHRC, of the Government of Guyana. And judging from the tenor of Jagdeo’s response and that of other government officials concerning the line of questioning about corruption, it conveys the same impression: that this was a grilling that took place.

The sittings are not interrogations. They are intended to be a dialogue and it was incumbent upon the Government of Guyana’s representative to insist on this mode which is in accordance with the mandate of the UNHRC.

In this column, three issues will be addressed. Firstly, Jagdeo’s proposition that the questions posed by Helfer do not represent the views of the United States government. Secondly, Jagdeo’s belief that the source of Helfer’s information came from the Opposition APNU; and third the nature of the discussions that took place.

To better appreciate all three of these issues, it is necessary to understand the UNHRC process. In 1966, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These two international agreements, collectively referred to as the International Covenants on Human Rights, established a framework for safeguarding fundamental rights. Guyana became a signatory to these covenants, obligating itself to allow the UNHCR to monitor its human rights practices.

The covenants establish a mechanism for enforcing these treaties among the participating states. This mechanism involves independent monitoring bodies or committees, as outlined within the treaties themselves. Comprising impartial experts in the field of human rights, these committees oversee the implementation of the covenants by the state parties.

For the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Human Rights Committee fulfills this monitoring role. Among its responsibilities, the Human Rights Committee receives and scrutinizes reports from state parties regarding their efforts to uphold the rights outlined in the Covenant. Additionally, it considers individual complaints, termed “communications,” submitted under the Optional Protocol. These communications allege violations of Covenant rights by a state party.

The sittings of the Committee in relation to a State’s human rights practices usually take the form of a dialogue rather than an interrogation. The UNHRC does not possess coercive powers over State Parties.

Though nominated by their respective states, committee members do not represent their nations while serving on the committee Jagdeo is correct in claiming that the US member sitting on the committee is not representing his home country. He is there in an independent capacity as an expert. As such his views cannot be equated with that of the United States.

But it is one thing to say this and it is another thing to conclude that the United States government does not share Helfer’s views. This would not be a valid argument even if the US has never communicated its concerns to Jagdeo or to the PPPC government. It is therefore conceivable that the views of the United States may or may not concur with that of the committee.

The Vice News investigative report in Guyana, which created quite a stir and whose contents found its way to the UNHRC, must not be viewed in isolation. It is quite possible that the United States would have been behind the decision of Vice News to dispatch its investigative reporters to Guyana and who found their way undercover into Jagdeo’s home.

During its recent dialogue with Guyana, the Committee raised the specific cases of un-investigated allegations of corruption. It is these allegations which Jagdeo contends were probably made by the APNU and which he described as contaminating. But he fails to appreciate that the very mandate of the UNHRC is to receive such reports from individuals, organizations, and even other State parties.

Whether or not such allegations were made by Opposition elements is irrelevant. Jagdeo should instead answer whether during the term of the APNU+AFC coalition government, the PPPC, in which he is General Secretary, filed any complaints against the then government. If it did not, he would have failed to hold the then government accountable for the human-rights violations which the party had alleged.

Among those allegations were attempts at undermining the judiciary and the discriminatory dismissals of hundreds of employers in the public service and in the state entities based on their ethnic and assumed political affiliation. There was also a botched intelligence operation which saw the military being used to conduct surveillance on civilians.

Jagdeo continues, up to this day, to hurl accusations of corruption at the former APNU+AFC government. But did he avail himself of the opportunity to relay these concerns to the UNHCR during his time in Opposition?

In the meantime, it is hoped that those who are alleging abuse of press freedom during Jagdeo’s press conferences will file a complaint, along with evidence to back up such allegations, to the UNHCR so that the government will have to answer to these charges the next time it appears before the Human Rights Committee.

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

---

• A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), Government, Guyana, Peeping Tom, United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC)

---