PNCR calls for independent probe of Lusignan massacre

The PNCR is calling on the government to immediately set up an independent commission to probe the January 26 massacre at Lusignan.

In a press statement yesterday the party called on the government “to stop playing politics with the security situation in Guyana, and immediately establish an independent commission to enquire into the events that occurred at Lusignan.”

According to the PNCR, it is evident to all that the government must produce and present “a credible and sustainable security plan that involves all stakeholders.”

Moreover, the party asserted, the plan has to be implemented within the context of a modern civil-military relationship that is reflective of good governance and guided by the rule of law.

The PNCR charged that President Bharrat Jagdeo had from the inception “made himself judge and jury” and appeared reluctant to have a proper investigation into the horrific killing of 11 Guyanese citizens, including five children.

The PNCR also accused the ruling PPP/C of exhibiting a charade about concerns for the Lusignan victims which actually was “mere political posturing born out of political self-preservation rather than any genuine concern for the victims.”

The PPP/C, according to the opposition party, had hoped to continue in Parliament on Thursday the “political masquerade” that they had been exhibiting on state-owned NCN for the past two weeks where PPP/C officials exercised a monopoly on that TV station while becoming involved in an exercise of “wrongful blaming and divisive politics.”

Meantime, the PNCR reiterated that it was prepared to be involved in serious decision-making on the security situation in Guyana but the party was not prepared to be part of what it called the PPP/C’s “scheme of deceit and divisiveness.”

The call by the PNCR for the independent commission was contained in a statement setting out its disappointment over the government’s rejection of its motion on the Lusignan massacre during Thursday’s sitting of the National Assembly.

The statement pointed out that PNCR Leader and Leader of the Opposition Robert Corbin had tendered the motion on February 2 to Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran asking him to use his powers under Standing Order 8(2) to summon a special sitting to consider the motion.

Responding on February 5th, the Speaker noted that Prime Minister Sam Hinds had signalled that the Government intended to ask for a sitting on February 11 and for the motion to be placed on the Order Paper for that sitting but because of the funeral of Deryck Bernard the session was postponed to February 14.

The Clerk of the National Assembly told Corbin that the Speaker was prepared to entertain a motion for the adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance and that the government would support same. However, because only a general debate would be permitted under this facility Corbin wrote Hinds requesting that he cause the relevant motion to be passed for the suspension of the Standing Orders so that the original motion could be debated.

The PNCR said that Hinds’ reply signalled government’s preference for a general debate under the matter of urgent public importance facility.

The PNCR said that since it considered the original motion to be important it took the precaution of writing the Speaker to satisfy the requirements of Standing Order 12 to ensure it was debated. The PNCR said it was later advised that no flexibility could be accorded under Standing Order 12 and that only a general debate would be permissible on the Lusignan massacre.

“The position of the PNCR was that such a debate would not have resulted in the adoption of a Motion expressing sympathy to the bereaved relatives of the Lusignan victims or the soldier from Dartmouth.

Therefore, it would not have served the purpose of ensuring that the National Assembly collectively ex-pressed its sympathy for the victims of the Lusignan tragedy and the GDF corporal, along with a decision to call on the Government to implement a definite action plan to deal with the deteriorating security situation.”

The PNCR said it therefore acted on the advice of the PM in his letter of February 13 that the original motion could be debated with the consent of the Speaker and the assent of the majority of the members present at the sitting.

A motion was then moved by Corbin and seconded by MP Winston Murray to suspend the Standing Order governing the period for notices for such motions.

“Disappointingly and regrettably, the PPP/C, faced with this final test of their sincerity and commitment, showed their true colours by voting against the Motion”, thereby defeating it.

PM Hinds had said that the government had serious concerns about a resolve clause in the motion where it suggested that the government had no plan to deal with crime.

The PNCR noted that Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee then sought and obtained approval from the Speaker for an open ended debate on the Lusignan tragedy.

“It is important to note that while Mr. Rohee and the PPP/C wanted to use a mechanism that restricted the debate solely to the events of Saturday 26 January 2008, they were unprepared to accept their own machinations when the Opposition withdrew from the National Assembly Sitting.

This was evident when Minister Rohee attempted to break the rules and went outside the allowed confines of the debate.

This led to the Speaker ruling, in accordance with the Standing Orders”. The PNCR added that “this was a clear exercise, on the part of the Minister and the PPP/C, of deceit, arrogance and the usual wanton abuse of power.”