Incorrect and Illogical: Addressing Misrepresentations on Human Rights Education

I have noted the recent letter published in Kaieteur News on November 14, 2025, titled
“Government’s Commitments to Human Rights vs. its Failure to Constitute the Human Rights Commission” by Mrs Tabitha Sarabo-Halley (hereinafter referred to as the author), who is a Member of Parliament representing her third and newest political dispensation, now in the WIN party. While public discussion on human rights governance is always welcomed, the argument presented by the author of the letter is not only ill-willed but also one of convenient amnesia about the facts. It rests on a series of regrettable but unsurprisingly flawed premises.
The letter asserts that human rights training “stands in sharp contradiction” to the status of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and claims it is “deeply inconsistent for the Ministry to celebrate human rights training achievements.” This framing, as is expected, misunderstands both the purpose of human rights education and the constitutional mechanics of the HRC.
Contrary to the ill-informed view of the author, human rights education is not and has never been a symbolic activity under any national, regional or international standard, nor is it a tool to score cheap political points. It is a core obligation under international human rights principles and a crucial component of a functioning democratic society. Training is an essential tool in building the very culture of transparency, informed participation, and public scrutiny that is required to hold Governments, Members of Parliament, civil society, and all citizens accountable. Building knowledge among a broad base of Guyanese, including public servants (teachers, healthcare workers, Police, etc), community leaders, students, and civil society actors, among many others, only strengthens the very ecosystem that our collective Government (executive, legislature, and judiciary) serves. As the letter itself acknowledges, the Certificate Course has “attracted hundreds of applicants eager to expand their understanding of human rights and governance.” This demand reflects the national value placed on accessible human rights education and the public’s desire and appreciation for greater inclusion and participation.
The author, a Member of Parliament in the 12th Parliament, who sat through five (5) annual budgets and participated in the examination of the Estimates, should have recalled that there is a budgetary allocation directly charged to the consolidated fund each year for the secretariat of the HRC, whose mandate is provided for in the Constitution. Furthermore, she would have heard my responses to questions on the appointment of the Chairperson. But alas, none of this sank in.
The author’s claim that the Chairpersons of the other commissions must elect the Chairperson of the HRC is blatantly incorrect and a reflection of a lack of understanding of Guyana’s supreme law. Under Article 212N(3), the Chairperson is appointed by the President from a list of six persons not unacceptable to the President, submitted by the Leader of the Opposition (a similar provision exists for the appointment of the Chairperson of GECOM). Thus, the HRC Chairperson is not elected by the Chairpersons of the constituent Commissions, as was incorrectly posited.
It is misleading for the author to imply that the operationalisation of the HRC hinges on ministerial action. The assertion that “successive administrations… have failed” illustrates that this is a multi-administration, multi-institutional issue that has not changed over time, even when the author’s former political party, the APNU/AFC, was in Government from 2015 to 2020. Further, from 2020 to 2025, her leader never tried to engage the President on the constitution of the HRC.
One only has to recall the author’s silence during the period from March 2, 2020, to August 1, 2020, when her own Government tried to thwart the right of the Guyanese people to vote for a Government of their choice and remain in power in violation of the constitution. The author appears to believe that changing political platforms erases past accountability, but constitutional history does not reset itself at her convenience.
The absence of a Chairperson of the HRC could not be interpreted by any rational person as evidence that education initiatives should be halted. Such an erratic conclusion collapses under basic scrutiny and should concern forward-thinking Guyanese who value education and opportunities to build their capacities and advance their professional endeavours. In short, the establishment of the HRC through a constitutional process has absolutely no relation to the implementation of a human rights education initiative.
Human rights training ensures that duty-bearers and all citizens understand their legal obligations and that citizens know how to claim their rights and carry out their responsibilities so that the wider governance environment remains vigilant and informed. This work continues precisely because it supports the long-term effectiveness and legitimacy of Guyana’s human rights architecture, which neither starts nor stops at the Human Rights Commission. In fact, the author needs to be reminded that any case that can be brought before the HRC can be brought before Guyana’s courts, as we have seen in many instances.
I reaffirm that education, institutional development, and constitutional reform processes can and shall progress with a more informed citizenry.
The author’s approach, driven either by a lack of knowledge of the constitutional architecture of Guyana or most likely by political theatre, does a disservice to the hundreds of persons who have already benefitted and will continue to benefit from this course. In conclusion, as Guyana’s Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, I take this opportunity to echo the sentiments expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Volker Türk, during his update to the United Nations Human Rights Council at its 60th session in September 2025, in which Guyana was specifically mentioned:
“Human rights education is one of the most important tools and investments we have to promote freedom, defend people from discrimination, and foster cohesion. I welcome the commitment and progress of some Member States. From the Arab region to Guyana, Mongolia and South Africa, we (the OHCHR) are supporting efforts to develop human rights curricula, amplify young voices, and promote civic engagement.”
Strengthening the culture of human rights requires multiple simultaneous actions, capacity building, public awareness, and institutional reform. I shall not allow misinformation or political grandstanding to diminish the credibility of this national effort. My Ministry nor the Government will be deterred from advancing democracy and good governance through its many initiatives and measures to ensure that all Guyanese benefit from its programmes and policies. This includes human rights education efforts which ensure the inclusion and participation of a broad base of Guyanese participants and highly qualified international and local facilitators. The Government will continue to advance the democratic governance of our country at all levels.

Hon Gail Teixeira MP
Minister of Parliamentary
Affairs and Governance