The Ministry of Home Affairs yesterday expressed shock and deep disappointment over the statement issued by the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) on Wednesday calling for the withdrawal of the sedition charge against ex-GDF officer Oliver Hinckson.
The ministry in a press statement described the views expressed by the GHRA on the matter as “grossly unfair and misinformed,” especially regarding the role of the Guyana Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The ministry emphasized that Hinckson’s arrest, detention and subsequent charge was initiated purely as a result of police investigations.
The release noted too that under Section 17(a) of the Police Act: “It shall be lawful for any member of the Force to arrest without warrant any person whom he has good cause to suspect of having committed or being about to commit any felony, misdemeanor, or breach of the peace.”
According to the home affairs ministry, the police had acted in accordance with the law by taking Hinckson into custody pending advice from the DPP regarding the charges to be laid against him.
And for the GHRA to claim that the police acted in “a mean-spirited” manner to “shut up” Hinckson, the ministry argued, was a “brazen attempt to bring the Guyana Police Force into disrepute.”
The ministry further pointed out that it was only after seeking the advice of the DPP that the charge of sedition was laid against Hinckson.
The ministry also charged the GHRA with calling on the President and his Government “to withdraw” the charges against Hinckson, contending that implicit in that is to “ask the President and his Government to act unconstitutionally since according to Article 187 (i) (a) of the Constitution of Guyana, “The Director of Public Prosecutions (referred to subsequently as “the Director”) shall have power in any case in which he considers it desirable so to do”, (and)
(a) to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court, other than a court-martial, in respect of any offence against the law of Guyana.”
Further, the ministry quoted Article 187 (4) which states: “In the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this article the Director shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.”
“No self-respecting human rights organization should call on a Head of State and his Government to withdraw charges that have been instituted as a result of due process and by a Constitutional Authority,” the ministry chided.
“Such a call,” the ministry declared, “smacks of political interference, a malpractice of the past and which the GHRA itself opposed under the previous administration.”
The ministry also observed that the GHRA did not solicit the views of the Guyana Police Force or the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this matter, but acted in what it deemed a “totally irresponsible manner” in seeking “to undermine the institutions of democracy and to subvert due process for addressing offences committed under the Laws of Guyana.”
Meantime, the GHRA in responding to the ministry yesterday said that it stood by its release which had said it was unwise and unhelpful to institute the charge of sedition at a time when the President was engaged in a consultation with stakeholders on ways forward to take the country out of the dangerous crisis in which it found itself.
The GHRA said further that it was “calling for statesmanship and magnanimity at a charged time.”
The human rights NGO also expressly stated that it “does not take a position on the prosecutorial or legal issues involved and does not in any way comment on the legal process”.
The body, meantime, refuted the ministry’s statement that the GHRA had called on the Head of State to withdraw the charges. Rather, it said, it had called on him to “play the role of leader and healer of the nation rather than the leader of a partisan faction”.
The GHRA noted also that its release on Wednesday had called collectively on the ‘Government’ to “desist and withdraw these charges”. “This refers to the entire apparatus of governance, including the agencies responsible for the administration of justice,” the GHRA said.
It also reiterated “the right of every citizen to call on these agencies to review their actions whenever the circumstances so require.”
And the human rights body maintained yesterday that the charges “were unwise and unhelpful at this time of dangerous crisis and could contribute to further inflaming the situation.”
And as a human rights organization, it stated that it was committed to defending the freedom of expression as recognized in national and international human rights instruments.
