Dear Editor,
There is need for the Guyanese public to closely observe the process of the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Its progress so far, because of both apparent lawyers’ restraint and puzzling signals from one of the Commission’s members, barely rises above the standard of a departmental hearing.
The United Nations Protocol for Law Enforcement Officers indeed lays down that criminal responsibility in cases of the use of deadly fire falls on the offending officer and cannot be excused by “higher orders.” But while it lays direct responsibility on the operatives, responsibility for “higher orders” must also be pursued.
The pursuit of Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee, however unpopular he is, will not shift responsibility from those firing. Minister Rohee’s own alleged conduct, however, raises other matters bearing on his ministerial responsibilities. The International Committee in Continuing Defence of Linden cannot accept such an early attempt by a Commissioner to provisionally clear the Minister, as reported in the media, before the Minister had a chance to explain his alleged meddling and his disregard for the Rule of Law, especially since this behaviour seems to be treated by one Commissioner as “privilege.”
Reported evidence seems to indicate that Minister Rohee may have had conversations with officers on the site at some time after the shooting. This report must be followed up and examined if there is to be a fair process. No country can tolerate that kind of licence by a government, behaviour which is more typical of bandit regimes. The testimony of the police officer who had sought on oath to deny a conversation on July 18 with the Minister continues to perplex the public after release of some telephone records.
The Committee welcomes the instructive remarks of Dr Nigel Westmaas published in Guyana on October 25, 2012 in Stabroek News and Kaieteur News, regarding the comments of a member of the Linden Commission to Mr Desmond Trotman MP. The Commissioner disapproved of the fact that a Member of Parliament could support mass protests, which the Commissioner judged to be breaking the law. The Committee welcomes MP Trotman’s candid defence of the only rights available to the powerless whose financial ability to sustain life was under threat. And in any case, it is always the democratic right and duty of the population to protest injustice. The Committee also welcomes the forthright testimony of trade unionist Lincoln Lewis who tried to assist the enquiry by a reference to past custom in the use of the bridge. It is regrettable that one Commissioner declared a lack of interest in some of the traditions of the bauxite town. Lewis’ evidence included essential facts and should not be ignored.
The Commission of Enquiry must have taken notice of the Regional Chairman’s official responsibilities. If Regional Chairman Solomon can be asked whether he advised demonstrators to leave the bridge, then Minister Rohee can be asked about his alleged conversation with the officer who under oath sought strangely to deny his conversations with the Minister. The Minister’s conversations with any officer below the rank of the Commissioner of Police were highly irregular and the Police Commissioner should not try to disguise this fact, especially in a crisis that has led to fatalities. It should be clear even to the uninitiated that the Minister would be ill-advised to be talking to officers below the rank of Commissioner of Police in the absence of the Commissioner. The Minister of Home Affairs cannot cross channels of communication by going beyond the Police Commissioner (except the Deputy in the event of the absence of the Commissioner). This is bringing politics into the police force.
Immediately after the shooting, Minister Rohee publicly denied communicating with Linden, and pointed to the lack of range in the police radio system to support his denial. It is only the production of telephone records that revealed what the Minister had concealed. The Commission can take judicial notice of the Minister’s oath of office which places the Minister always on oath when he speaks on public affairs. His appearance before the tribunal is therefore long overdue, if the whole procedure is not to be written off as farce rather than justice.
The fundamental issue from which the Commission should not be distracted is this: Can the police justify shooting at peaceful protestors, killing three and wounding twenty? Are the police and the governing authorities advancing the government/police defence of ‘self –defence’? Apart from plain common sense there is enough law, in statute and cases, to guide the Commission in examining such a defence.
The Commission cannot be seen making a case for the authorities. Where then can the people apply for justice? If anything it should lean in sympathy toward the victims. This is not a court of law.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Sara Abraham; Dr Peggy Antrobus; Syadazem Azeem; Moses Bhagwan; Dr Horace Campbell; Dr Dennis Canterbury; Prof Jan Carew; George Daniels; Luke Daniels; Lord Anthony Gifford QC; Vic Hall; Errol Harry; Dr Adeola James; Selma James; Mushtaq Ahmed Khan; Marc Matthews; Eusi Kwayana; Tchaiko Kwayana; Dr Kimani Nehusi; Michael Parris; Dr Patricia Rodney; Dr Terrence Roopnaraine; Sylvia Salley (Tlinget Nation)
