Rule of Law Abroad, Selective Justice at Home

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Rule of Law Abroad, Selective Justice at Home

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

Minister Kwame McCoy’s assurances to the Inter-Parliamentary Union demand an immediate domestic answer: was a court-ordered remand enforced, and where is Daniel Seeram? McCoy’s Speech Cannot Conceal a Government of Double Standards.

Minister Kwame McCoy went to Arusha, Tanzania, to tell the Inter-Parliamentary Union that Guyana is committed to human rights, democratic governance, accountability and the rule of law. At home, however, the Government faces a far more basic test: whether court orders, public institutions and ordinary citizens receive the same respect when politically connected people are involved.

McCoy declared that human rights and democracy are not “abstract principles confined to international declarations.” The problem is that, under this administration, those principles too often appear to become abstract the moment they demand accountability from the powerful.

The speech in Tanzania was polished. The record at home is not.

Where Is Daniel Seeram?

The immediate and unavoidable question is: Where is Daniel Seeram?Seeram, the National Border Patrol Director and former Region Four Chairman, was reportedly convicted on October 2 of assault causing actual bodily harm against his former wife. Magistrate Abigail Gibbs remanded him pending sentencing, and Justice Joy Persaud-Singh subsequently upheld the remand order after he sought relief in the High Court.

Yet reports indicate that Seeram was not transferred into the custody of the Guyana Prison Service, despite the court order. Officials at Lusignan and Georgetown prisons reportedly said he was not being held at those facilities, while the Acting Director of Prisons reportedly declined to provide a public explanation.

This is not gossip. It is a direct challenge to the credibility of the criminal-justice system.

If a magistrate orders a man remanded and the High Court sustains that order, the public is entitled to know whether it was carried out, where the prisoner is being lawfully held, which agency has custody, and who authorized any departure from the normal process. The Government cannot preach “access to justice” in Tanzania while refusing, or failing, to provide transparent answers in Guyana.[1]

A rule-of-law government would have answered the country immediately: “Where is Daniel Seeram, and why is he not clearly accounted for in the prison system?”

Law for Some, Latitude for Others

McCoy praised Guyana’s judiciary, Audit Office, Ombudsman, Rights Commissions and Elections Commission as institutions that secure transparency and accountability.[

But institutions do not defend democracy simply because ministers mention them in international speeches. They defend democracy when their rulings are obeyed, their authority is protected, their findings trigger consequences, and political connections do not produce a separate standard of treatment.

For the poor, the unknown and the unconnected, remand is no academic question. It means police custody, prison processing, court dates and the harsh machinery of the State moving with unforgiving speed. But when a senior official with access to power is reportedly absent from the prisons to which he should have been committed, Guyanese are entitled to ask whether there are two systems of justice: one for ordinary citizens and another for those who enjoy official favor.

That perception is corrosive because it is rooted in a plainly answerable fact. The State has the records. The police know who has custody. The Prison Service knows who has been received. The Government has the capacity to settle the matter in one clear statement.

Its silence is not neutrality. It is an injury to public confidence.

Human Rights Begin at Home

The minister spoke of gender equality, the protection of vulnerable groups and access to legal protection. But those declarations ring hollow when the case raising questions involves a woman whose former husband has been convicted of assaulting her.

What message does this send to women who report domestic violence? What confidence should survivors have in the justice system if a person convicted of assaulting his former wife can become the subject of public uncertainty over whether a remand order has been enforced?

A government genuinely committed to protecting women would not treat this as an inconvenience in the news cycle. It would ensure that the court’s order is transparently executed, the survivor is treated with dignity, and the public understands that official status is not a shield from legal consequences.

Human rights are not vindicated through carefully selected phrases in foreign conference rooms. They are vindicated when a woman can report abuse without fear, obtain justice without political interference, and see that the law applies equally to the person who harmed her.

The Democratic Test

Guyana’s Government wants credit for supporting 146 recommendations during its 2025 Universal Periodic Review, including recommendations touching democratic governance, gender equality, social inclusion and legal protection.

Fine. But accepting recommendations is not the same as implementing them. International commitments are not trophies to be displayed; they are obligations to be honored.

Freedom House’s 2025 assessment cited continuing problems involving corruption, police brutality, discrimination and intimidation of journalists, and gave Guyana only 2 out of 4 for whether due process prevails in civil and criminal matters. The U.S. State Department’s 2024 human-rights report also identified credible reports of serious human-rights concerns in Guyana.

Those assessments should not be brushed aside as hostile commentary. They should compel a Government that claims to welcome scrutiny to confront weaknesses honestly, correct them, and allow institutions to operate without political manipulation.

Instead, Guyanese are repeatedly asked to accept speeches as proof of governance while troubling facts go unanswered.

No More International Theatre

Minister McCoy said Parliament must enable public participation and scrutiny of executive action. Then Parliament, the responsible ministers and the relevant agencies must answer the questions now before the country.

♦ Where is Daniel Seeram?

♦ Is he in lawful custody pursuant to the remand order?

♦ If not, who authorised his release, transfer or special treatment?

♦ Why has the Prison Service not provided an unequivocal public account?

♦ What safeguards exist to ensure that persons with political or official connections do not receive treatment unavailable to ordinary Guyanese?

♦ What protection and support have been extended to the complainant in this matter?

These are not partisan questions. They are questions demanded by the rule of law.

The Government cannot go to Tanzania to lecture the world about transparency, accountability and democratic values while leaving Guyanese to chase basic answers about whether a court order has been respected. It cannot invoke the dignity of citizens abroad while creating the impression at home that dignity, justice and equal protection depend on who one knows.

The 592 Guardian rejects this crass duplicity.

The rule of law is not a diplomatic talking point. It is not a shield for the connected and a weapon against the powerless. It either applies to everyone—or it is not the rule of law at all.