Ancestral, indentureship rights generate lively discussions
Editorial
The Parliamentary Select Committee on constitutional reform yesterday began looking at a report from one of its work groups and the issue of ancestral and indentureship rights generated lively debate. This particular work group had been assigned the task of looking at, among others, the constitution as a document and land and the environment. It will continue its discussion on the report next week as there are recommendations which are contentious such as the Constitution Reform Commission's (CRC) recommendation on ancestral rights and indentureship rights as they relate to land. The other recommendations it is charged with looking at are the economy; the right and duty to work, finance and national security. In looking at the recommendation related to the constitution as a document, the report presented by Dr Rupert Roopnaraine, the convenor of the work group, says that it was agreed the entire constitution would be recast in user-friendly form and language that is simple. It says too that the group had agreed that the Fundamental Rights section, in particular, "is to be clear and uncluttered, making it readily accessible to the ordinary citizen. In addition, the provisions treating with the disadvantaged and people with disabilities will be highlighted." Also, the report says that the group "expects that those responsible for drafting the constitution will make use of Simple Language Experts in arriving at the final text." Bernard De Santos, one of the six representatives of the PPP/Civic on the Committee, pointed out that while simplifying the language of the charter had beneficial effects, there was also the possibility of creating chaos by doing so. In discussing the recommendation related to land and the environment, it was agreed that the recommendation which went to the National Assembly should be more precisely stated than that which came from the work group. The agreed recommendation from the work group says that "land shall be for productive and beneficial use including the creation of communal open spaces for recreation. However, Home Affairs Minister, Ronald Gajraj, another of the PPP representatives, cautioned against the use of subjective concepts such as "beneficial" and "productive" in the constitution. But it was pointed out by Dr Roopnaraine that the function of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, Cecil Dhurjon SC, was to ensure that these ideas are stated in appropriate form for the convenience of the legal draughtsmen and to ensure that the recommendations from the Committee are internally consistent. The recommendation that generated the most intense debate was that on ancestral rights in relation to land. The Commission recommendation is that "parliament should recognise the need to examine the issue of Ancestral Rights and Indentureship Rights in relation to land, with a view to putting appropriate mechanisms in place." The work group, however, proposed that an article should be included in Chapter II of the Constitution recommending that "in addition to their obligations regarding the indigenous peoples, the State and the government shall provide for investigation and settlement of the century old claims of descendants of enslaved and indentured peoples regarding the rights equitably accruing to them in consequence of their roles in the formation of the Guyana economy." But De Santos and Gajraj expressed reservations about the recommendation. De Santos contended that the CRC recommendation did not recognise that these rights exist but merely acknowledged that there were claims being made and that they should be investigated. Moreover, he said that ancestral rights and indentureship rights are not known in the laws of Guyana. Gajraj on the other hand said that the work group's recommendation in addition to the point raised by De Santos did not take into account land which had been legally acquired as distinct from ancestral rights and indentureship rights. He stressed that the CRC recommendation to parliament did not mean that the Select Committee was to implement it. Dr Roopnaraine contended that the CRC recommendations lumping ancestral rights and indentureship rights only made sense in the context of reparation. Also he contended that the work group recommendation suggests two things that the rights exist and the Government should investigate and settle them. Raphael Trotman, one of the three representatives from the PNC on the Select Committee, argued "who, if not us, will look back and recognise the contribution and struggles of our ancestors, brought here through slavery or indentureship?" The Committee will continue its recommendation on this issue at its meeting next week
|