Two weeks ago, a father of three young children was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for the possession of less than 0.5 ounce of marijuana. Magistrate Judy Latchman was severely criticised, even though she was simply following the law. Following the sentence, there was an outcry and, in their usual opportunistic posture, certain Alliance For Change (AFC) leaders, like Raphael Trotman and Khemraj Ramjattan, criticised the learned Magistrate, currying favour with a large section of the population and trying to demonstrate their independence from their senior coalition partner.
Both of these AFC leaders insist that the sentence should have been non-custodial in keeping with global best practices and consistent with the position that the Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, outlined in May 2017. The problem is that while non-custodial sentences for possession and use of small amounts of marijuana are a global trend, President Granger and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) are opposed to changing the law. Will AFC stand up for principle and support legislative action to reform the marijuana laws? Indications in the past 48 hours are that the AFC is about to surrender to President Granger and APNU and prevent any parliamentary intervention.
Magistrate Latchman’s ruling is totally within a clearly archaic law. She is being blamed for doing her job. But her ruling has catapulted the marijuana debate into national prominence. The social media debate about the law and marijuana in Guyana is exploding at this moment. The politicians have been vociferous in expressing contrary views. Should marijuana use and possession be legalised? Should the penalties for the use of marijuana be changed to permit non-custodial sentences for possession of small amounts of marijuana? How should trafficking of marijuana be treated?
It has been several years now since Caricom mandated a region-wide reconsideration and meaningful reforms of the marijuana laws in Caricom countries. But under President Granger and APNU/AFC, Guyana has been playing “footsie” with the issue. The Granger-led Government is reluctant in addressing the future of marijuana use and possession. President Granger is on record saying that there would be no change in the law. Now Minister Harmon is trying to find a comfort zone in which the AFC can hide; he is offering national consultations. While national consultations are necessary and are useful for the comprehensive reform of the marijuana laws, including the possibility of full legalisation, as is the case in Uruguay or in several States in America, there is no need for consultation on changing the laws to permit non-custodial sentencing for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
An AFC Member of Parliament had submitted a bill to reform the marijuana laws in 2015. The reforms proposed included non-custodial sentencing for possession of small amounts of marijuana. It is almost three years since he did that, but the AFC at the time ensured that his bill never got onto the Order Paper of Parliament. The AFC killed Michael Carrington’s bill three years ago not because it did not have merit, but because it surrendered to the power of APNU. The party were compelled to “behave” and that led to Carrington’s bill not seeing the light of day.
When Bharrat Jagdeo called for reforms of the marijuana laws in May 2017, some of the AFC leaders accused him of playing to the gallery, that he was only doing so to gain support of certain sections of the Guyanese population. But I have had the honour of knowing and serving with the Leader of the Opposition. I have seen him adjust his views as circumstances change. This is what good leaders do. Maybe in 2001, he would have been more cautious in embarking on reforms of the marijuana laws. But I know that in May 2017 when he proposed reforms to permit non-custodial sentencing for marijuana possession, he was acting on accumulating evidence around the world and on the rapidly evolving public opinion. His recent reiteration of this position is an opportunity for the AFC to support a progressive change in the laws.
Incidentally, the call for reforms of the marijuana laws in Guyana is an old one. The Rastafarians have long proposed these changes, dating back decades. While the demands of the Rastafarians might have been extreme, Dr MY Bacchus, the late well-known gynaecologist, published letters in the daily newspapers as early as 1997 calling for legalisation of marijuana possession, particularly for the medical use of marijuana. In the coming days, our interest will focus on whether the AFC can stand up to or whether it will buckle once more to the superior power of APNU.
