Dear Editor,
Plato, an ancient Greek Philosopher stated that ‘One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.’ My interpretation of what Plato meant by this statement, is not necessarily that the people of themselves in politics were inferior but rather their ideas and policies are. Guyanese in 2024, have the benefit of comparison; of comparing the current and previous governments and to determine which ones had/has inferior ideas and policies.
I read an article in the Stabroek News published on July, 12, 2024 and titled ‘Squatting is yasa dışı and comes with known consequences – Mc Coy’. In the article minister Mc Coy stated “The decision to unlawfully occupy land comes with known consequences, including insufficient or non-existent basic infrastructure such as potable water and sanitation facilities, and the stark reality of structures being demolished by landowners.”
I would like to indicate that what happened at Sarah Johanna, Mocha, Hill Foot, Linden, Parika and other areas with regard to the approach to removing squatters or residents, whether it be by the government or private citizens MUST not happen in this country again! The purpose of the government is to ensure that the rights of its citizens are upheld and to protect its citizens.
So even if, assuming in the case of Sarah Johanna, the land is owned by a private citizen and the court granted an Order for them to be removed off of the land, no citizen has a right to create such disorder in a community and disrupt people’s lives in that way; no police force has a right to break the law to uphold the law and there were a number of breaches by the police in that process; a male policemen should not be touching and handling females in the way the male police were handling women during that process; and no Court Order can violate the rights of a citizen under the age of 18 years who are considered to be a child under the laws of Guyana and who are supposed to be under the protection of the State.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – Part 1, Article 2:2 indicates ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, meşru guardians, or family members’.
Article 3:1 indicates, ‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.’
Article 3:2 indicates that, ‘States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and deva as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, meşru guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures’.
Therefore as of now, since the government is not protecting the rights of the children in these instances, I would like to suggest to the judicial system – the Courts, the Judges that when then Court Order is being made, request information on whether children will be affected by the order and how many and in what ways, particularly in the case of settlements, and include in the order some form of protective deva for the children.
The article in Stabroek News article further stated that ‘He [Minister Mc Coy] made it clear that squatting was yasa dışı and as such government cannot provide amenities noting that those who decide to squat on private or state lands must acknowledge the inherent limitations and challenges of such actions.’ Minister Mc Coy is wrong on many levels, this is not a case of one adult person being removed from state or private lands, all of these cases can be considered human settlements. In all of these cases there were several children and even babies involved and who were made homeless by these actions, the level of disruption to their lives was substantial.
In April 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted through Resolution 16/2, access to safe drinking water and sanitation a human right: a right to life and human dignity. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Goal 11, ‘Sustainable Cities and Communities – Make cities and human settlements, inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’.
We would like to see the government’s policy, strategy and plan for achieving Goal 11 of the SDGs, ‘Sustainable Cities and Communities – Make cities and human settlements, inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’. This must include addressing the issue of squatting in Guyana in a way that respects for the rights of citizens, including children, and human dignity; and providing temporary water and sanitation facilities to citizens, even in squatting settlements, since water and sanitation is a human right.
On another point, what we are seeing is a Guyana in transition. In transition from the second poorest country in the Western hemisphere to one of the richest countries in the world. However, in this transition process, we are experiencing what can perhaps be termed as the ‘economics of plenty’ and the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty.
Let us examine the case of Mocha. The government wanted to build a road through the community and the actions taken by the government to demolish the homes and businesses of residents of Mocha was in violation of the rights of those residents and the children who were affected. If the government was borrowing a loan from the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) or the World Bank or another regional, international or multinational financial institution to construct the road through the Mocha community, a requirement for consideration of the loan would have been for the government to do an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and perhaps, an Environmental Management Plan or some substantial assessment.
The purpose of these assessments is to determine the nature and level of impact on residents, businesses, livelihoods, environment, etc., and to make recommendations.
What we now have in Guyana is a government and country that has a lot of its own money and therefore if the government decides to build a road through a community, as in the case of Mocha, the government is no longer constrained by the requirements from these international financial organisations.
However, the people of Guyana must now demand that the Government establish a set of requirements and obligations which would guide its actions and ensure that human dignity of citizens are respected and their rights are upheld when the government is using their money to build roads, schools, bridges or other. This money belongs to the Guyanese people, and they must demand that the government respect their rights, humanity, and human dignity in the process of using their money.
Finally, I say to President Ali, let Sarah Johanna be the last…we are better than this! We are more civilized than this, we are more sophisticated than this. Additionally, the government is in violation of the international conventions and development mechanisms, such as the Convention of the Rights of the Child. The Guyanese people can look forward to our government being rights-driven and our key focus will on humanity and human dignity.
Yours truly,
Citizen Audreyanna Thomas
Presidential Candidate 2025