Dear Editor,
When Mr Eusi Kwayana fires, his aim is not to disarm but to ensure specific objectives are achieved. Speaker Raphael Trotman of the opposition AFC has justifiably ruled that the Home Affairs Minister has every constitutional legal right to speak in parliament. No longer would he be subjected to an opposition gag in parliament, with one shoe off, and one shoe on. The opposition wanted him gagged because of Linden. Enter Mr Kwayana as the supreme judge to hold Mr Rohee all over again responsible for Linden where three lives were needlessly lost.
A letter from Mr Kwayana to the SN was published on February 22 titled ‘The lack of comment on Minister Rohee’s conduct after the Linden shooting is disturbing.’ A commission of inquiry has met and all the evidence has been presented. Why this harking back? Mr Kwayana proclaims that “whenever and wherever there is a fatal shooting by the police, the Minister of Home Affairs cannot be left out.” Is the Home Affairs Minister automatically guilty because he is sworn to preserve law and order and also guilty of causing the ensuing mayhem?
Mr Kwayana cannot be clearer than asserting the right to break the law without facing the consequences. He quotes the Police Act and then writes, “to me the fact that the Minister was not on the spot is not important. He does not have to be on the spot to be responsible. The President charged the Minister with responsibility for the police under Article 107. The Minister cannot escape political and constitutional responsibility. The Police Act says, ‘The Commissioner shall be subject to the general orders and directions of the Minister, have the command and supervision of the Force and shall be responsible to the Minister for peace and good order throughout Guyana.’” Then he does a quick about turn conceding, “this is not on the face of it criminal responsibility. Evidence must establish criminal responsibility.”
But all cannot be well in the encampment when Mr Kwayana can publicly fault the PNC leader Brigadier General (rtd) David Granger and his own WPA member Dr Rupert Roopnaraine, who representing APNU “agreed in the name of the people without consulting the people of Region 10 and then corrected it when the people rejected the high-handed decision.” Mr Kwayana is, of course, also, again very disturbed that the PPP/C government democratically held talks with the top leadership of the PNC which controls Linden. Arising from the ashen, smoky haze comes forth Mr Kwayana’s shrill legendary wisdom after the fact, that the PPP/C government should have dealt directly with the Linden rank and file instead of their PNC leaders. He fumes that the PPP/C “government had been in office for 20 years and should have known the proper Region 10 authorities to bargain with, rather than bargain with proxies.” What makes him more representative and less of a proxy by this misplaced fretting? What Mr Kwayana is questioning is the internal PNC right to decide who legitimately speaks for them.
The obvious transparent objective of all this is to eventually target the Linden Commission of Inquiry report. What does he discern peering in his looking glass from afar that so disturbs?
Nevertheless, could the celebrated nonconformist be advising us that whenever the current top PNC leadership negotiates with the Government of Guyana for its predominantly African constituents that they must not to be taken seriously and they are always wrong? That the selective condoning of confrontational protest outside the framework of Guyana’s democracy is preferable to meaningful negotiations?
Yours faithfully,
Sultan Mohamed
