Victims of last December’s rubber bullets shooting by police say they are still waiting on justice, even as the official probe seems to be at a standstill while the officer who ordered ranks to fire on unarmed protestors was promoted.
Speaking to Stabroek News recently, 69-year-old Joan Baveghems said that to date she has heard nothing from the police on the status of the investigation into the December 6, 2011 incident, when she was among several protestors who were shot with rubber bullets.
At the same time, she pointed to the illegal protest charge that she and other A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) supporters involved in the protest are still facing in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. She said no one is telling her anything about the police investigation, while she was both surprised and disappointed to learn that the rank who ordered that they be fired upon was transferred and promoted in another division, weeks after the shooting.
Baveghems said that she would have wanted the senior members of the Guyana Police Force to be more professional in conducting the investigation and update them on what is happening in the case. She added that following the incident, an apology to all involved was in order. “If they had come and apologised, I would have accepted it but I am not in a position to accept that now. Too much time has passed,” she said.
While she is convinced that she will get justice, “someday, someway,” Baveghems noted that she is still feeling the effects of the injuries she sustained in the shooting. She was struck by pellets in both legs and as recent as early last week she was forced to seek medical attention.
She explained that since the shooting, both of her feet have been swelling and she was awaiting the results from a doctor’s visit to ascertain the cause of the problem.
Another victim, William Thomas Dalgety, said that he was concerned about the route the investigation is taking, while emphasising that something should have been done. With marks on his body confirming that he had been shot, he called on the police to pursue the investigation and also for compensation for his ordeal. Dalgety said was unsure if he would ever get justice.
In January, another shooting victim, former army Chief of Staff Edward Collins said that he was not surprised at the police’s silence on the matter, while pointing out that they have recognised that they erred.
Collins, who bore more than six pellet wounds to this back after the incident, maintained that that protestors were shot in the back, which would discredit any claim that they were violent, were disorderly or were a threat to ranks.
They also had their hands up when they were shot, he recalled.
He said that he found it most reprehensible that the rank at the centre of the incident would have been moved to another division and promoted, especially so soon after the incident.
Based on all accounts, after leaving the Square of the Revolution, a large group of protestors, who had not been granted permission for a march, were met at Hadfield Street by about half a dozen armed policemen.
The police ranks were heard over a loud speaker urging the crowd to disperse, but their warnings were not heeded and shots were later fired.
The crowd then scattered in different directions while some of the injured, who were left lying on the ground, were picked up and rushed to the hospital. APNU supporters were at the time protesting over the results of the general elections, which saw the PPP/C winning the presidency.
The police force later said the shooting was unfortunate, while the Ministry of Home Affairs made it clear that it had not instructed the use of rubber bullets against protesters and also called on the police top brass to discuss the issue, pointing out that a junior rank had given the authorisation to fire. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is said to be conducting the investigations but Stabroek News was unable to get an update from any police official.
“Nothing surprises me these days, nothing,” APNU’s Shadow Home Affairs Minister Winston Felix told Stabroek News in a recent interview, in reaction to the transfer of the rank at the centre of the shooting.
Felix, a former police commissioner, explained that every discharge of a firearm must be investigated in order for an examination of the circumstances of shooting to ascertain whether it was “justified” or “intemperate.” Further, he said that an investigation could highlight ways in which such incidents could be dealt with in the future and address the rank involved and point out what aspect of training ought to be modified.
He pointed out that the issue at hand is whether minimum force was used. “Though rubber bullets might have been less lethal, the use of it might not have met the minimum force standard simply because those against whom it was used were unarmed and were not violent,” he said.
Felix noted that he was taught that before one resorts to the use of a firearm, there must be, if practicable, a warning. In a riot situation, he, however, added, if the disorder is in progress, then there is no scope for warning, but the Criminal Law Offences Act provides for a proclamation to be read by a gazetted officer.
He said that another level of warning falls under the banner which reads, “Disperse or we fire.”
