Dear Editor,
This is my first comment on the brutal killings that took place at Lusignan when eleven persons, including five children, lost their lives under the most tragic of circumstances. It is therefore only fitting that I begin this conversation by expressing my deep condolences to the bereaved relatives and friends of the deceased. To the people of Lusignan and the wider Indian community, I want to use this opportunity to say that I share your grief. As a nation if we are truly concerned about this waste of human lives we must redouble our individual and collective efforts to get to the root causes of problems and work assiduously for national solutions, so that we can have an end to killings and have lasting peace.
I had deliberately, refrained from speaking or writing sooner on this incident for two reasons: (1) I was convinced that what I say would have been used by the ruling party, its propaganda agents and spin doctors to tell Indian Guyanese that my expressions of concern were not sincere and I was playing politics; and (2) given my history of controversy on the issue of extra-judicial killings and my known opposition to the selective manner in which the regime’s so-called war against crime is being waged, I felt it would have been unwise and insensitive for me to express my views before those who were killed were laid to rest and some form of normalcy was returned to the lower East Coast.
On Friday evening 1st February, 2008, I had the opportunity to view a program on the state owned TV station, NCN, on the Lusignan killings. Part 3 of what I assumed is one of a series was being aired. It was hosted by Kwame Mckoy and his guests were Ministers Clement Rohee and Leslie Ramsammy. It was clear that the main objective of the programme was to give the ministers the opportunity to attack leader of the PNCR and the parliamentary opposition, Mr. Robert Corbin, Mayor of Georgetown, Hamilton Green and ex -army officer Oliver Hinckson, on what these persons were alleged to have said on the Lusignan killings.
Both government ministers were adamant that to condemn the killings was not enough, unconditional support must be given to the government and the security forces’ operations to capture those responsible for the executions of the eleven persons and the shooting of a Guyana Defence Force (GDF) soldier. The ministers’ position was that if anyone dared to speak about causes and solutions he/she was in fact giving support to criminals and showing scant regard for those who were killed. If the ministers’ views represent the regime’s position the message to Guyanese is clear- do as the government wants you to do or shut up. And if you play their game and shut up you are accused of supporting criminals and terrorists. In the eyes of this regime you are damned if you speak and damned if you don’t.
This point was best demonstrated by the treatment meted out to the Elder of Buxton, Eusi Kwayana, by the host and his guests. They were very quick to quote from his book – “The Morning After” – that dealt with the situation in Buxton. Having opportunistically highlighted Kwayana’s views, Rohee then went out of his way to make the ridiculous observation that Kwayana had not written any letter which condemned the executions of the 11 persons. The undeniable fact is that Kwayana was among the early wave of letter writers condemning the killings. His letter – “What is the point of these killings” – was published in Stabroek News on January 30th 2008. We must ask ourselves if Rohee’s utterance was as a result of an oversight on his part or, a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. If it was an oversight why hasn’t the Minister pointed this out and publicly apologised to Kwayana for his erroneous statement? This is yet another example of the indecent behaviour of our rulers and the way they have been known to treat with comrades whose contribution to the struggle for democracy, justice and fair play are well known and documented.
On the programme I referred to, Rohee also made the same statement in relation to me. In my case he was correct since, as I had stated earlier, I had deliberately refrained from writing or saying anything on it before. But his statement that my failure to speak out put into question my claims to be fighting for justice, is an example of Rohee’s self-serving political logic – if you don’t make an early intervention you are not serious about justice. My attitude to these matters is not to intervene simply for the record but rather to seek to influence the situation in a positive way. When my judgment is that I can’t do the above I prefer to shut up and bide my time.
I propose to limit this letter to an examination of the government and the Joint Services handling of the situation prior to the executions at Lusignan to determine whether this tragic event was avoidable. Before doing so let me mention some obvious questions that come to mind: (1) Was the kidnapping of Tenesha Morgan a deliberate and calculated action to force a violent response from Rondell “Fineman” Rawlins so that he could surface and be captured? (2) Is Ms Morgan’s abduction an attempt by elements in the narco trade to sabotage suspected negotiations between the President and Leader of the PNCR, Mr. Robert Corbin? Or is it just a random coincidence?
What is certain is that the government and the security forces failed to demonstrate, prior to the killings at Lusignan, that they were giving the abduction of Ms Morgan and her unborn child the serious attention it deserved. The government for its part seemed to have taken the position that since Rawlins was a wanted fugitive his girl friend’s abduction was not important, even in spite of Rawlins threat of a violent response if the girl and her unborn child were not found. Given Rawlins known history as claimed by the state and the security forces his threats should not have been taken lightly, as they appear to have been. More importantly, the government has a constitutional duty to protect its citizens within the ambit of the law. It is clear that the government had discriminated against Miss Morgan by not insisting that the police engage in a serious search to find her. Even now the Security Forces continue to play games with their handling of the “Morgan affair.” They have on several occasions, alluded to their wanting for questioning three men who they claimed may be able to throw some light on Ms Morgan’s disappearance and that they have been following leads on the whereabouts of the three, without telling anyone who these persons are. Are they looking for ghosts or are the security forces more interested in protecting the identity of these three “wanted persons”? In this kind of situation we must ask the Heads of the Security Forces to say what leads they are following.
Based on the developments we must also ask if the inactivity in the early stages of the pending crisis were influenced by a desire to see if Rawlins would make good on his threats? A more professional approach would have been for the Joint Forces to come out very early after the threats were made by “Fineman” and unambiguously disassociate themselves from Ms Morgan’s alleged kidnapping. Instead, they chose to remain silent on their “non involvement” until days after the killings happened.
It is necessary that we look carefully at the political context of these developments. Over a protracted period there were no violent engagements between Rawlins group and the security forces or the phantom gangs. To use a popular saying all was quiet on the western front. The Home Affairs Minister even boasted that the crime rate was down and the security forces had the situation under control. We came out of the Donna Herod shooting by the security forces without any violent response from the “Buxton Gunmen”. This seemed to have emboldened the Guyana Defence Force’s high command. We subsequently learnt that a young man from Buxton was kidnapped by persons claiming to be members of the security forces and to date he has not been accounted
for. The Joint Services then went further and arrested two men in the Buxton community. When these men were released their bodies bore evidence of being battered and had serious burns. The victims claimed that they were taken to an army camp and tortured. There was a public outcry and the army after a prolonged silence said that its personnel were not involved in the men’s torture. The Police had earlier disassociated itself from the torture allegations. Then the army was accused by its own ranks of acts of torture. Two serving soldiers leveled these accusations against their interrogating officers. It was then revealed that the army had established a unit which specializes in the use of torture to combat crime. It was clear that the regime found itself in the embarrassing situation of encouraging torture as government policy.
In light of the above, the failure to act expeditiously on Ms Morgan’s kidnapping was to put it lightly, a tactical mistake. Those who were responsible for this abduction are just as responsible for what took place as those who carried out the executions.
In closing, I wish, for what it may be worth to make a personal appeal to Rondell ‘Fineman’ Rawlins: If you are indeed the person who spoke to Kaieteur News and accepted responsibility for the killings of the eleven persons at Lusignan and gave assurances that you would not in future target children and women – please, in spite of what it may cost, keep your promise to the nation.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
