Guyana Observer News

Dear Editor,

During his campaign, President Obama placed indigenous communities high on his agenda. On the day of his adoption by an American Indian family he stated that he believed that treaty commitments made to American Indians by the United States of America were ‘paramount law’. He promised to fulfil those commitments as President. Article VI of the USA Constitution provides that all treaties made under the authority of the USA are included in what constitutes the ‘supreme law of the land’.

We shall take a brief look at similar treaty commitments in Guyana , and compare the relevant constitutional provisions with those of the USA.

During the early years of colonisation in Guyana , colonial representatives signed trade and peace treaties with Amerindian leaders. Agreements were reached which included the supply of enslaved Amerindians who had been taken captive, and declared rights to use and occupy their ancestral land. From about the 17th century , there was large scale importation of enslaved Africans. Large numbers of Africans ran away from the plantations and formed free, autonomous, independent communities in the interior. They were referred to as ‘Maroons'. These communities often comprised a diverse society of African, Amerindian and European heritage. Treaties were signed with the communities. An example was the peace treaty sealed in 1738 between the Dutch and the Creole Island community, which was established in the upper Cuyuni River in Essequibo

The Constitution of Guyana is the ‘supreme law' of the State, as laid down by Article 8. The Preamble confirms that ‘The Guyanese People value the special place in our nation of the Indigenous Peoples and recognise their right as citizens to land and security and to their promulgation of policies for their communities'. Article 149G provides that ‘Indigenous peoples shall have the right to the protection, preservation and promulgation of their languages, cultural heritage and way of life'.

It is worthy of note that these provisions may be interpreted to mean that the descendants of Amerindian and ‘Maroon' societies in Guyana are entitled to enjoy the supreme constitutional protection afforded to ‘Indigenous Peoples'.

There would appear to be no doubt that the Constitution of Guyana makes more adequate provisions for its indigenous communities than those enshrined in the Constitution of the USA.

COLIN BOBB-SEMPLE