Is fact-checking an elusive goal for Guyanese commentators?

Dear Editor,
During a conversation on Guyanese politics one evening in February 2020, a good friend, a former WPA member, insisted that many “experts” will emerge on the “oil and gas,” the environment, climate change, the energy, and other sectors after the 2020 elections. They will exploit to the fullest the freedom of speech/expression afforded them under the Guyana constitution, subject to some restrictions like one cannot make hate speech nor defame others (Article 146, items 2 and 3 of the Guyana constitution) in the articulation of their concerns, whether real or imaginary, on aspects of Government’s policies/programs.
I never doubted my friend’s position, but I did indicate that for freedom of speech/expression to resonate well with people, it must be grounded on evidence/facts or sound logic. Platitudes and rhetoric are no substitute for evidence/facts and logic. A content analysis indicates that much information placed in the public domain is not evidence or fact driven. Often, misleading, false, and distorted information find its way into the print media, radio, podcasts, and social media. Is fact-checking an elusive goal for many Guyanese commentators?
Another pattern of writing that I detect is the propensity of some writers to proclaim their adherence to accountability, the upholding of morality; and their corresponding condemnation of discrimination in all forms. I have no issue with any of these positions, However, when stories of alleged violations in these areas surface, many writers are quick to render their judgment based on incomplete, distorted, or corrupt information and might even substitute speculation for facts.
One would expect that writers who embrace accountability and profess a lofty claim of upholding high standards of morality would not be “selective” to comment on cases they choose to report on, but rather to report on all perceived aberrations, especially those that adversely affect national institutions and policies. A little journey into our history could provide a few clues.
Popular social commentator and accountant Mr. Lallbachan Ram offers his opinions on almost every Government’s policy/program. A few years ago (2015), in keeping with his moral compass and need to hold leaders accountable, he filed a private criminal case in April 2015 against the then leader of the Opposition Leader Dr Bharrat Jagdeo in which he accused him (Dr Jagdeo) of uttering offensive racial remarks in a March 2015 speech at Babu John, Port Mourant, Berbice. The case was called up at Whim Magistrate’s Court but was subsequently transferred to the High Court where it was dismissed.
The PPPC had filed several private criminal charges against APNU+AFC ministers. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) dropped the charges on technical grounds saying that such allegations must first go to the Police for investigation. In Dr Jagdeo’s case, why was the Police or ERC (Ethnic Relations Commission) not approached first? Was this a case of double standard? Did not our wise jurists say that justice must be fair, be uniform (consistent), be impartial, be rational, and be predictable?
We got an important insight into Mr. Lallbachan Ram’s quest for accountability and morality through the prism of former PNC Prime Minister and Vice President of Guyana, Mr. Hamilton Green, who says nonchalantly: “If, as I told one of the groups that I met this (last Friday) morning they say he (LFS Burnham) rigged elections, I say we should keep rigging to save us from these devils, these bastards, these demons that we have.” Under persistent pressure Mr. Green apologized: “I openly apologize to my wife, family, friends, and detractors… for any discomfort I may have caused by my words.” (2/29/24). For what did Mr. Green apologize? His remarks on rigging or his racist remarks or both? At a time when the PNCR has been working hard to improve its image, this reckless but calculated assault on democracy has struck a severe blow to his party.
This was a huge story that could not miss a crusader in accountability and morality. How could Mr. Ram remain quiet when a top PNCR member advocates for the rigging of elections which strikes at the heart of democratic governance, and which could disfigure the people’s sovereignty? Not only that, Mr. Green’s statement was also racist in nature indicating that his group should be ‘on tap.’ Guyana’s Attorney General condemnation of Mr. Green’s utterance is emphatic: “This is a racial attack against every other group.” (iNews: 2/23/24). Mr. Ram is visible literally everywhere: he questions the EMG (Exxon Mobil Guyana) asset valuation, and renders unconditional support for GTU’s strike, among other things. Is his silence a sign of ‘acquiescence?’ Let us hear what the civil society’s guru has to say?

Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh