By Mark DaCosta- Sexual harassment in the workplace is not simply a private workplace matter—it is a serious issue of safety, dignity, power and workers’ rights. The issue has taken on added significance in Guyana following allegations of rape and threatening behaviour against Deputy Commissioner of Police Fazil Karimbaksh, head of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), which are currently under investigation.

The case underscores why workers must understand the protections available to them and why allegations of sexual misconduct, particularly where there are significant power imbalances, must be taken seriously and handled through credible, fair and transparent processes. Guyana has legislation that provides avenues for workers to challenge discriminatory and harassing conduct, making public education about these rights essential.

The Guyana Trade Union Congress (GTUC) published an insightful examination on October 4, 2026, highlighting the vital importance of understanding and utilising these protective laws, specifically the Prevention of Discrimination Act, Cap. 99:08. This legislation clearly delineates sexual harassment, extending its purview to the public and private sectors alike. According to the Act, harassment manifests not only as overt physical actions but also through a range of unwanted sexual behaviours tied to employment conditions. Such treatment can contribute to a hostile work environment, which is never acceptable.

The Act explicitly prohibits discrimination in employment based on various grounds, including sex and marital status. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that when the alleged offender is someone in a position of power — such as a supervisor or high-ranking official — this situation becomes particularly fraught. Employees may harbour legitimate fears of retaliation, including job loss or ostracism, should they voice their concerns. This creates a chilling effect that often inhibits victims from reporting harassment, allowing toxic behaviour to persist.

To empower themselves, workers must not solely rely on verbal complaints. Instead, it is paramount that they maintain detailed and precise records of incidents as they occur. Specifically, keeping thorough documentation — including the date, time, location, and nature of each incident, as well as potential witnesses — can prove invaluable. Preserving evidence such as emails and messages is also essential. “Avoid deleting potentially relevant communications, even when the messages are embarrassing or distressing,” the GTUC article advises, underscoring the need for a robust personal record that can substantiate claims.

Utilising established workplace protocols is another critical facet of addressing harassment. Many organisations have instituted human resources departments, harassment policies, and designated officers to handle complaints. Although these internal procedures are helpful, employees must also be aware that alternative avenues exist. The Ministry of Labour and Manpower Planning plays a crucial role in supporting both employees and employers, overseeing labour administration, and offering mediation for disputes. For those who prefer an external route, the Ministry provides an online complaint mechanism, with resources readily available to facilitate assistance.

However, not all instances of workplace harassment can be categorised as mere employment disputes. Conduct that involves sexual assault or threats of violence must be addressed within a criminal context. In these scenarios, it is imperative that the affected individual seeks aid from the Guyana Police Force and obtains legal counsel to navigate these complex waters.

It is equally vital to highlight the responsibilities that lie with employers. Maintaining a discrimination-free workplace is essential for promoting employee welfare and satisfaction. The Ministry of Labour’s mandate encompasses fostering amicable industrial relations while providing necessary advisory support to unions and employers alike. Furthermore, the Equal Rights Act enshrines the principle of equality, ensuring that all individuals have equal rights and legal status across the spectrum of social, political, and economic life, while explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on gender in employment contexts.

Ultimately, no worker should face the agonising choice between enduring sexual harassment and preserving their job. Understanding the law, documenting harassment incidents, utilising appropriate reporting channels, and seeking external assistance when required will enable staff to safeguard their rights and ensure that all allegations are thoroughly investigated.

In our nation, as the conversation around workplace harassment continues to evolve, it is imperative that both employees and employers commit to fostering a culture of transparency and respect. When individuals are equipped with knowledge and empowered to speak out, we can begin to dismantle the stigma surrounding reporting harassment and create a safer, more equitable work environment for all. Knowledge is power, and when the law stands firm behind workers, they can advocate for their rights without fear of reprisal.

Source: Village Voice News

By Dr. David Hinds- Today the APNU is a household name. We take it for granted. But it was not always so. It is difficult to accurately predict political behavior. What is true for 50 years could change in a day. Guyana’s recent elections have proven the validity of that formulation. All of us got it wrong, even if we got some parts right.

The narrow victory by the APNU+AFC Coalition at the 2015 election went against the traditional grain in Guyanese politics. The conventional wisdom has been that, given our entrenched ethnic voting patterns, it was near impossible for the party or parties whose base lies outside the Indian Guyanese constituency to win a majority of the votes.

That changed in 2011 when the combined APNU and AFC votes surpassed those of the PPP. As commentators and politicians began to contemplate the possibility that a joint APNU+AFC slate could actually win, there were some questions that were raised. The big one was whether the majority votes accumulated in 2011 as separate contestants could be replicated if they joined together in a coalition. Some, including this writer, were skeptical.

Those who felt it was possible to win premised their calculations on the ethnic identity of the Presidential candidate. They argued that since you could not win the PPP without pulling away a significant section of the Indian Guyanese electorate, it was better to have an Indian Guyanese presidential candidate.

In the end all of us were wrong to some extent. First, the Coalition did defeat the PPP. And it did so inspite of the ethnic voting remaining constant. Second, the PPP got 49% of the votes. Those who predicted a Coalition victory did not bargain for such a good showing by the PPP.  Third, the Coalition won without an Indian Guyanese Presidential candidate.

More in-depth analysis is needed to determine the real causes of this.  But the one thing we know for certain is that the presence of the Coalition made a difference. It had a great psychological effect on the Opposition constituency; it gave them a sense of confidence that their votes could make a difference.

The dynamics of Partnership politics are complex. I am sure that some members of the PNC feel that the party gave up too much to the APNU and to the Coalition. Such thinking, while understandable, loses sight of the big picture. The PNC was now back in power. But as part of a broader partnership, it had to share power. In so doing it was potentially insulated against party hegemony, one of the scourges of Caribbean governance.

Many people and groups can lay claim to be the architects of the end product, but I would single out two of those for special mention—WPA’s Professor Clive Thomas and Dr Rupert Roopnarine and PNC’s Robert Corbin.

I did not know Robert Corbin outside of politics. My political contact with him occurred during the run-up to the 2011 elections when I was part of the WPA’s delegation and he led the PNC’s delegation at APNU leadership meetings.

From as far back as the run-up to the 2006 election Corbin signaled his intention to decisively break with the One-PNC tradition. He was bold enough to court or was open to be courted by the WPA. This took courage.

The PNC-WPA rivalry was perhaps the most intense in Guyana’s political history. Corbin was ready for the plunge even if most in the PNC were not. The WPA was not ready in 2006. Emotions still flared.  The AFC came on the scene and took away part of the PNC’s constituency. The PNC had recorded its worst showing in an election up to that point

But by 2011 they were ready to take the plunge. Corbin was still there. I got the sense that unlike most of his colleagues, he had freed himself from the myth that the PNC could win an election on its own. But more than that, I think he reasoned that the vote that went to the AFC could be won back by a Coalition. He had become a soldier for Coalition politics, even if he was not the top candidate.

He worked for it. He had to navigate the WPA’s demands and that party’s militant political culture. But he stuck with the project, even as some of his colleagues thought the WPA brought nothing to the table and the PNC should go it alone. The AFC was not ready for the Coalition, but Corbin was never daunted.

In the end he delivered the APNU to a skeptical PNC. The 2011 election proved him right. The APNU brought back the traditional PNC constituency together. By 2015, the AFC could join the Partnership. The AFC had great difficulty joining the PNC. They joined the APNU. The rest is history. Robert Corbin led the way. He had the early vision.

Source: Village Voice News

Dear Editor,

The McKenzie Bridge is the Culmination of the A Partnership for National Unity’s (APNU) Vision for Region 10

The Regional Chairman and Council worked assiduously with the drafters and framers of the bridge project to make this giant edifice a reality. Meetings with consultants , teams from the Ministry of Public Infrastructure were held, even a Sunday meeting with a team from the University of Guyana. Thanks to all.

Monies were not stolen from National Insurance Scheme (NIS) or from Guyanese tax payers but the project was conceived from a vision statement coming from the APNU that residents must be able to transport goods and services from the Corentyne to Lethem and the Brazilian border.

To the leaders of the APNU, thanks. The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) was compelled to do this project as all of the loans and grants were signed.

Bharrat Jagdeo wanted the road project / bridges going through Parika back dam then linking up at Rockstone. He even made the statement in Canada when asked about the road and bridge, his answer was “not through Linden ”

Great change after disaster is coming. Long live the People’s National Congress (PNC)!

Yours truly,
Anil Singh

Source: Village Voice News