Does the mandate of the Ethnic Relations Commission extend to offensive but non-racial comments?

Jun 18, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) of Guyana was established under Article 212A of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana. Its functions, elaborated in Article 212D, reflect an ambitious national objective: the promotion of ethnic harmony, the elimination of ethnic discrimination, and the safeguarding of equal opportunity among Guyana’s diverse ethnic communities.

But as Guyana continues to confront the challenges of an evolving public discourse—particularly in social media-level exchanges—questions arise as to whether the ERC’s mandate encompasses all “offensive” speech, including vulgar or insulting language that is not explicitly race-based. For instance, what if a citizen publicly insults or curses another citizen’s family? Does this fall under the ERC’s jurisdiction?

To answer this question, it is essential to begin by understanding the functions of the Ethnic Relations Commission as set out in Article 212D of the Constitution. The Commission is charged with a number of important responsibilities. It is expected to promote equality of opportunity for all ethnic groups and to work actively to eliminate ethnic discrimination wherever it arises. It also has a duty to discourage behaviours and language that could incite ethnic tension or lead to the exclusion of any group. Where instances of racial discrimination are reported, the Commission is empowered to investigate these complaints and to recommend appropriate corrective measures. Beyond these enforcement roles, the Commission is also expected to play a unifying role by fostering understanding, tolerance, and cooperation among the various ethnic communities in Guyana. In support of this, it is mandated to encourage education, promote conciliation, and utilise other mechanisms of dispute resolution that can help preserve and strengthen ethnic harmony across the country.

The mandate is explicitly and repeatedly tethered to ethnic and racial dimensions of social life. Nowhere in the constitutional text is the ERC conferred a general power to act upon every form of vulgarity, insult, or offensive speech between private individuals, unless it implicates race, ethnicity, or national origin.

Accordingly, if a citizen curses or insults another citizen’s family, however distasteful or degrading, such conduct would not, on its face, fall within the ERC’s remit—unless the nature of the insult evokes, implies, or is grounded in racial or ethnic identity. The Commission is not a general tribunal of public decency or interpersonal conduct; its jurisdiction is purpose-built to guard against ethnic division, not general incivility.

Yet, complexities do emerge. The ERC is empowered under Article 212D(1)(q) to investigate “any issues affecting ethnic relations,” on its own initiative or by request. This broad clause might be interpreted to permit investigations where seemingly non-racial comments carry ethnic undertones, or where cumulative patterns of speech, including family-based insults, contribute to a wider climate of ethnic hostility. In such cases, the ERC might view an ostensibly personal insult as a proxy for ethnic vilification.

Nonetheless, this interpretative leeway must be approached with caution. The doctrine of legality, fundamental to constitutional governance, provides that public bodies—especially those with investigative or adjudicative powers—must act within the four corners of their legal mandate. To allow the ERC to investigate all “offensive” conduct between citizens, regardless of ethnic content, would be to stretch its authority beyond what the framers of the Constitution intended.

Moreover, there are constitutional implications. Article 146 guarantees the right to freedom of expression, subject to reasonable restrictions “in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health,” or for the protection of the rights or reputations of others. If the ERC were to begin policing general offensiveness—insults about family honour, for example—it could be accused of interfering with this fundamental right, particularly where the expression is not motivated by racial animus. The burden would then fall on the ERC to demonstrate that such intervention is both lawful and proportionate.

This leads to the second inquiry: by what criteria does the ERC determine which offensive comments are worthy of review and which are not? This is not a procedural triviality but a question of legal legitimacy. The Constitution does not prescribe a standard for filtering complaints. Consequently, the ERC must develop and publicly communicate clear, principled guidelines that define the threshold for investigation. Without such guidelines, its decision-making risks appearing ad hoc or selectively enforced.

In practice, the Commission may receive complaints ranging from egregious cases of race-baiting to relatively trivial instances of community gossip or personal insults. It must then assess whether the conduct complained of: (a) invokes or implicates race or ethnicity; (b) has the potential to inflame ethnic tensions; or (c) contributes to structural or systemic patterns of ethnic exclusion or discrimination. If none of these factors are present, the ERC would likely be exceeding its constitutional brief by acting on the complaint.

It is important to acknowledge that other constitutional or statutory bodies may have jurisdiction over offensive or defamatory conduct of a non-ethnic nature. For example, the courts may entertain actions for libel, slander, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Human Rights Commission may address issues related to dignity or privacy that fall outside the ERC’s purview. The ERC should not encroach upon these areas, lest it dilute its core mission and compromise institutional coherence.

While the Ethnic Relations Commission can play an important role in fostering ethnic cohesion in Guyana, its powers are circumscribed by constitutional design. Its jurisdiction does not extend to every offensive or vulgar remark between citizens, including those directed at family members, unless such speech is ethnically charged.

The Commission must remain vigilant not to overreach, even as it remains responsive to evolving societal dynamics. Its legitimacy depends not only on the quality of its interventions but on the constitutional fidelity of its actions. Clear standards, legal restraint, and principled interpretation will ensure that the ERC remains a guardian of ethnic harmony, and not an arbiter of all speech.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Ethnic Relations Commission, Guyana Constitution, Peeping Tom, Racial comments

---