Dear Editor,
I left the country just as the government was launching their gun amnesty programme. I came back last weekend, anxious to find out how the venture was progressing. I have seen this kind of gun amnesty and gun buy-back work in several countries where I have lived and travelled to, including the USA and Canada.
However, as I listened intently to the summations from a recently held press conference on the gun amnesty, I heard that it is decided that there will be ballistics tests conducted on all weapons and ammunition handed in to ascertain whether they are linked to any crimes and that further, there will be amnesty on the possession of the illegal weapon but not for crimes committed using the weapons.
And this, Editor, is where I was taken aback. Why would the authorities, in the middle of an amnesty drive, divulge information that is likely to stymie the drive? What should have been the highlight of that press conference is the lauding and praising of those who took the bold steps of doing the right thing and returning those weapons. There should have been a clarion cry for such behaviour to be emulated.
However, the message has now been blurred with the suggestion that there may be arrests and imprisonments related to the said amnesty. It is very likely that criminals, or the friends and family of criminals are the ones who turned in the guns and ammunition. Why then would the authority publicly announce that the very person/s who are making use of the amnesty might be arrested for a related crime?
I am not saying that ballistics tests should not be conducted on the weapons and ammunition, neither am I suggesting that there should be an amnesty for any related crimes. I am just wondering why the authorities – in the middle of the drive ‒ would do even the slightest thing to proverbially shoot itself in the foot.
We saw the same approach to the Shawn Hinds situation, where right in the middle of Shawn’s bombshell confessions, it was said that he would not benefit any from such confessions and divulgence.
I am convinced that there is something that the politicians and public security personnel know in Guyana that my years of training and dealing with similar situations have not yet revealed to me. But I am sure that the current administration has the best possible advisors available to them, so I continue to sit on the sidelines, as I carefully observe and learn.
I do hope, for the sake of the safety of all Guyanese, that this amnesty nets a huge portion of the guns used to inflict grievous bodily harm and even death. I also pray that the reluctance to engage criminals in any kind of quid pro quo or plea bargaining, works to the advantage of the security personnel in Guyana and aids in the reduction of crime.
Yours faithfully,
Pastor W P Jeffrey
