Editorial
Stabroek News
June 16, 2001

Parliament recently passed the Constitution (Amendment) (No 3) Act to establish four new commissions, the Human Rights Commission, the Women and Gender Equality Commission, the Indigenous Peoples' Commission and the Rights of the Child Commission. These commissions will be funded by the government and members shall be appointed for three years (Article 212H does not say by whom) and will be eligible for re-appointment. This law was passed to implement some of the recommendations of the Constitution Reform Commission.

The functions of the three commissions other than the Human Rights Commission (which we propose to deal with here) include to monitor and review existing and proposed legislation and policies in their sector, to educate the public on such matters, to carry out research, to investigate complaints and resolve disputes (does that confer semi-judicial powers?) and to liaise with governmental and non-governmental organisations. They can require information from any person or government entity.

The Human Rights Commission "shall promote the observance of and respect for, and protect and investigate violations of the rights recognised by this constitution and any other law relating to equality of opportunity'. The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has argued in a press release that this does not include the fundamental rights set out in the constitution. That is a matter for legal interpretation and on the face of it we do not agree with them. It was certainly not the assumption of the members of parliament during the debate who expressly referred in their speeches to some of the fundamental rights. If there is any doubt, however, this can be clarified by an amendment as it seems quite clear that the intention was that the Commission should have the power to monitor the rights in our own constitution as well as those in international conventions.

The chairman shall be selected by the President from a list of six suitable persons submitted by the Leader of the Opposition after consultation with persons with experience in human rights matters. The other four members will be the Chairpersons of the Ethnic Relations Commission, Women and Gender Equality Commission, Indigenous Peoples' Commission and the Rights of the Child Commission. The GHRA has pointed out that this can be cumbersome. Presumably the rationale for this formula was that it was desirable to have persons who were in touch with the work of the other commissions on this commission, especially as those commissions can under Article 212 J (6) refer matters to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to be dealt with.

The GHRA has also contended that the HRC has not been given the power to summon witnesses or compel appearance at hearings. They seem to have a point here and this may be due to the hasty drafting of which they also complain, and which is obvious. There are some anomalies and lacunae.

This commission can be useful (it might be able, for example, to entertain complaints from prisoners who have been waiting for trial for several years in breach of their constitutional rights or from the relatives of young men shot by the police and in a number of other topical areas) but a nagging doubt remains. It is already difficult to find competent judges and magistrates. Finding persons to sit on these commissions and carry out their functions in a timely manner and efficiently may not be easy. Retired judges and lawyers would be an obvious catchment area, and even practicing lawyers. But will they be interested? That may depend on the level of salaries that will be on offer.

We have been developing a tradition of passing laws which are never implemented for want of will or personnel, a kind of parliamentary tokenism. It must be hoped this will not join the list.