The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) today called on the government to publish the full text of its migration agreement with the United States, while describing the decision to receive third-country nationals removed from that country as “shameful”.
In a statement, the rights body disputed the government’s assertion that those relocated to Guyana would have voluntarily chosen to come here and argued that the arrangement could breach constitutional and international human rights protections.
“At a minimum, the GHRA is calling for the prompt release of the text of the agreement between Guyana and the USA covering the acceptance and treatment of deported persons,” the organisation said.
The government announced on Saturday that it had concluded a one-year migration cooperation framework with the United States under which Guyana would receive a “limited, vetted number of skilled and non-criminal individuals” through the International Organization for Migration’s (IOM) Assisted Voluntary Return Programme.
According to the government, Guyana will retain full discretion to review and reject each person proposed for relocation, while the United States will meet the full cost of the process.
The IOM is expected to arrange the reception, accommodation and support of those transferred to Guyana, including services to assist with their integration and communication with lawyers and relatives. The government said the arrangement was temporary and did not constitute permanent resettlement.
It also said only persons who chose relocation to Guyana “of their own volition” would be accepted while awaiting the determination of their immigration status.
However, the GHRA rejected the characterisation of the programme as voluntary, contending that persons facing removal from the United States could not be regarded as exercising a free choice when the alternatives reportedly included transfer to countries with poor human rights records.
The association also accused the government of failing to explain the constitutional basis for receiving an unspecified number of persons removed from the US.
It cited Article 141(1) of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The GHRA contended that the protection applied to everyone within Guyana’s jurisdiction and not only to citizens.
The association further said that the arrangement could conflict with Guyana’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and the Inter-American human rights system.
The GHRA placed the agreement within a broader criticism of the recruitment and treatment of migrant labour in Guyana. It argued that, for a country whose history was shaped by indentureship, Guyana should be particularly cautious about participating in arrangements involving vulnerable migrants whose choices may be constrained by poverty, displacement or the threat of removal.
The organisation also referred to previous allegations about the treatment of overseas workers in Guyana and questioned whether the country’s rapid economic expansion was being accompanied by adequate protection of migrant rights.
The call for publication of the agreement follows similar demands by opposition MPs Sherod Duncan and Amanza Walton-Desir.
Six persons—four Cubans and two Afghans—reportedly arrived in Guyana on Friday, one day before the agreement was publicly announced.
Duncan and Walton-Desir said the government had not disclosed the maximum number of persons to be received, their legal status, whether they would be permitted to work or what would happen if they could not return to their countries of origin or relocate elsewhere.
Walton-Desir said the arrangement reportedly allowed for up to 12 persons per month for 12 months, potentially amounting to 144 persons. However, she did not identify the source of that information, and the figure was not included in the government’s announcement.
The joint announcement by Guyana and the United States referred only to a “limited” number of persons and did not publish the complete agreement or state when it took effect. The government’s account of the framework also did not explain the immigration status under which the relocated persons would enter or remain in Guyana.
Discussion