An enquiry should include all armed expressions in a given period if we want justice which will give ‘satisfaction’ to all

Dear Editor,
When a country passes from one form of dictatorship to another, under the rescuing group there is always conflict about where to lay the emphasis.  The obvious duty, after one term at most, is to deal with the current authorities responsible for order, good government and governance.

Here are  lines  from Dayclean of December 4,1982 giving  reports of tortures “as it happened” under the  PNC unreformed.
“The treason trial of Ivan Sookram has come and gone. After two and a half years in that hell hole called Georgetown Prison after torture, beatings, biting and other various obscenities, the State’s first and last statement at the opening of the treason trial was, ‘We have no further evidence to offer.’ This is what they said to Ivan Sookram, the judge, the family and friends of Ivan Sookram and the twelve men and women sitting as the jury. Apart from the so-called confession thrown out twice by then Magistrate Anthony Singh, and thrown out by Judge Harper, they had NO evidence. And they have no shame.”

“The arrest and trial of the suspects in the treason trial led to the biggest outcry since 1964 against torturing suspects. Under the government of those days some policemen were charged before the courts for torture. In the Sookram case, things did not happen that way. When the offenders are charged and out before the court, everybody has some idea who is who. When this does not happen the whole force gets a bad name.”
The Ivan Sookram treason trial of the 1980s, as empty as the PPP’s recent treason trial, collapsed in open court because of  established torture by a police force that often reflects the bile of the impatient rulers. Sometimes it is their own bile. Then, as under the recent PPP, we heard of specially chosen torture squads for Jones and Sumner held on suspicion, probably outdoing in torture methods the Death Squad of the seventies and eighties. In 1980 attorney-at-law Moses Bhagwan feared for the safety in prison of his client, David Hinds, whose lawyer’s visits were being obstructed.

Under the PNC there was no Roger Khan about whom the head “knew” nothing, but there was Rabbi Washington about whom the head “knew” nothing.  Not by design, each was “known” to US law enforcement and was being protected.

Women Against Terror was the answer to a policeman at Plaisance holding a menacing gun to the head of a WPA activist couple’s baby who was being held in the mother’s arms while their home was being raided in 1979.  Under the PNC, dozens of the precious working class were tear-smoked in a crowded lock up in Linden. Under a previous PPP government, Fairbain Batson was tortured and confessed and ended up in hospital as a result of his injuries.  Under the PNC Arnold Rampersaud was framed, but seemingly not tortured and did not confess.
Generally, the force has applied torture to the caste of persons seen as a caste without ‘brains,’ qualifications and contacts. This often applies to public beatings as well. But on September 17, 1981 this rule did not hold. WPA women with all those qualifications were marching against apartheid. The police were let loose on them with hockey sticks in a public square. One fine International Women’s Day in 1976 Ms Halima was dragged by the hair by the police. Ohene, Dublin and Rodney were all liquidated in public places. Roopnaraine was chased in a manhunt and had to spend a night in a canefield.

There is no guilty race.  Good scouting to those trying to discover one.
The two political ‘nations’ in Guyana receive things differently. Even the prize Marxist, Dr Jagan, in his unguarded moods saw us as nations. The Indigenous people feel that they must support one nation or the other. Frustration with this led to the formation of the Amerindian Party (now forgotten) led by Mr Jackson, a teacher.
Each ‘nation’ has its script, its self-justification, its catechism, its prophets. “Palm tree wrong – Cup right”  or  “Cup wrong – Palm tree right!”
Let me repeat. In my personal opinion there is a clear duty, especially on the part of political parties, to pursue the corruption of the state and its involvement in, or with alleged narco-traffic and extra-judicial murders. That duty does not exclude pursuit of older state crimes under previous regimes.  The society has to find a way of satisfying the reasonable grievances and aspirations of each sector.

I think there is a legal maxim somewhere that they who approach the courts for justice must “come with clean hands.” Or are clean hands old-fashioned?
I am not suggesting that attacks against the PPP/C government have to be tempered with recall of similar deeds under the PNC. That is for the floor of the National Assembly and for free agents. There are terms of office with instant accountability and specific persons in charge at particular times. There is the supreme executive authority intact since 1980.
When we go to the point of a formal inquiry, however, is it just for exposure of a government already exposed?  Or is it for the wider  work of reconciliation, or healing? A one-sided justification, short of confessions, is already there.

To borrow from Soyinka, the “more guilty versus”  is becoming deep-seated in  our politics and society. An enquiry should include all armed expressions within a given period, if we want a justice that can bring “satisfaction” to all. This is not an original idea.

What do I recommend? Nothing. The undisclosed in-your-face columnist of Kaieteur News, like any student, will know that in the case of an inquiry it will normally take more than terms of reference to keep out or bar the accused party or parties from introducing what they deem to be in their interests. It will be kept out only by wilful intent or agreement. It was the President of Guyana who in his discretion restricted the terms of reference of the Gajraj Inquiry, in spite of  demands from the organizations outside the government that the East Coast be included.  The lurking, well-resourced Peeper should reexamine that period.

In any case, any inquiry of the kind requested will lead on, without a doubt, to what ought to be included. To suppose that one set of violations can be explored without including another related set of violations is like thinking that animals can go to crab dance and not get mud.
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana