The Speaker of Parliament has again jumped to the defence of the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) when he rejected questions relating to the pardoning of prisoners. The Opposition has a constitutional right to ask these questions on behalf of their supporters and on behalf of the people of Guyana. When governments act in secrecy, they have something to hide and it is the role of Parliament to remove the veil of secrecy when governments stonewall people’s right to know.
When a Speaker of Parliament restrict and remove the right of parliamentarians to ask legitimate questions, the Speaker becomes a part of the conspiracy to deny people their right to know. It is wrong when pardoning of prisoners are done in absolute secret. It becomes a scandal when the Parliament of that country becomes complicit in reinforcing the secrecy of the President’s prisoner pardon frenzy.
It is widely known that some of the beneficiaries of this initiative have recommitted crimes in their communities within days or weeks of being pardoned. Some of the persons pardoned were convicted of violent crimes and they are back in police custody for other violent crimes committed since they were pardoned.
These are the reasons why ordinary Guyanese have concerns and that prompted the Opposition People’s Progressive Party to seek information about the Prisoner Pardoning Initiative. Failing to get information from the Minister of Public Security or from the Office of the President, the PPP made petition to have answers in Parliament. The Constitution and the Standing Order of Parliament make provisions for such move.
The President’s power of clemency, to either commute a sentence or shorten it through a pardon, comes from the Constitution. But pardoning convicted criminals has to be used to remedy some of the fault lines inherent within the justice system, such as mandatory prison sentences for lesser crimes. It is done so as to relieve the over-crowding of prisons and to provide a second chance for persons who lost their way. But the first stop in addressing these issues is the parole system that is built into the criminal justice system. Prisoner pardoning by presidential fiat is supplementary to the parole system in addressing these fault lines.
Some of the strongest democracies have seen prisoner pardoning by Presidential fiat become common place. President Obama in America has taken a lot of flak for pardoning prisoners. The truth is that he has used it less than Presidents such as Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Lyndon Johnson and John F Kennedy. But in America and other strong democracies, there are strict legal frameworks that guide the pardoning process.
Pardoning is done within well-constructed and approved policy guidelines that are empowered by comprehensive legislation and social rehabilitation programmes. For example, in the USA, prisoners convicted of violent crimes do not benefit from Presidential pardoning. Such prisoners can seek shortening of their sentences through the parole system.
In part, presidential pardoning has been driven by increasing applications from prisoners in over-crowded environments in countries like the US and a major reason for the over-crowdedness is the more draconian laws that have led to increase mandatory sentences for crimes like illicit drug possession. A salient point here is that prisoners must make an application and that only certain prisoners can appeal for pardoning – non-violent prisoners.
In America, for instance, prisoners seeking pardons will have to have served at least a certain proportion of their sentences, have no significant criminal history, and no connection to gangs, cartels or organised crime. Applicants also must be inmates who probably would have received a substantially lower sentence if convicted of the same offence under more recent justice reformed systems. And to be eligible, they must have demonstrated good conduct in prison.
The process needs clear standards, with reasoned explanations of why an application is granted. Someone has to be in charge of making recommendations to the President and that person has to be independent, have real authority, and the confidence of the President. The pardon process must be accessible and responsive to people of all walks of life and take into account the likelihood that many deserving pardon applicants will not have skilled counsel or well-connected supporters to advocate on their behalf. The system for clemency has to be fair and transparent for everyone.
The Speaker of the Parliament by refusing the questions from the Opposition on the prisoners pardoning has launched another attack on the people’s rights and on our democracy. It is another signal that we have entered a period of authoritarianism and that the Speaker is a part of the conspiracy to suffocate democracy.
(Send comments to [email protected])
