Opposition party AFC yesterday objected to a proposal for the Commission of Inquiry into the July 18 shooting of Linden protestors to include the organisation of the protests, saying that it was unacceptable and an affront to the dead.
As a result, AFC called on the government and APNU, which are finalizing the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the inquiry to rethink the inclusion of such a condition.
“It is of no relevance into the cause of death of Messrs. [Allan] Lewis, [Shemroy] Bouyea and [Ron] Somerset who organized, mobilized or promoted the protest on July 18th 2012,” AFC said in a statement, in response to the proposed TOR which was delivered earlier in the day by the Office of the President (OP).
“To subsume the importance of their unjustified shooting to death in an inquiry about the organization, mobilization and promotion of protest actions is not only an insult to the deceased but inflammatory,” the party argued.
Stabroek News was unable to reach APNU MP Joseph Harmon, who along with Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon, has been tasked with crafting the TOR. Numerous questions have been raised about the manner in which the TOR is being released.
The AFC, in its statement, said that while most of the proposed terms were acceptable, the second proposed term of reference which purports to propose an inquiry “into the role, involvement and other forces in organizing, mobilizing and promoting the protest actions from their commencement and immediately after the shooting on July 18th 2012” was unacceptable.
“It is with a significant degree of disappointment that it appears that politics have trumped the desire for justice and fair play,” it said, adding that death of men exercising their constitutional right to protest should not be used to score cheap political points. “Their deaths are far too important and the loss too great for such a dis-service to be done to them,” it added.
Somerset, Lewis and Bouyea were shot dead and at least 20 injured after police opened fire in the vicinity of the Mackenzie-Wismar Bridge on day one of what was supposed to be a five-day protest over increased electricity tariffs.
The AFC warned that if the inquiry’s terms of reference include the issue of who was responsible for the protest, the citizenry may be unwittingly given the impression that there is something wrong in exercising the constitutional right to protest.
While urging OP and APNU to rethink the inclusion of this specific term of reference, AFC said it will leave it up to Lindeners to determine whether they want it retained for the inquiry.
‘Deadline’
Meanwhile, during his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing yesterday, Luncheon insisted that the August 2 deadline for the submission of the TOR was met but added that the terms are now being revisited due to objections by the AFC.
In responding to questions by this newspaper, Luncheon said that during the initial process the AFC declined participation on the grounds that one of its demands had not been met.
Following the shooting, it was agreed that Luncheon and Harmon would meet and compile the TOR. President Donald Ramotar gave them an August 2 deadline. On that day, there was a parliamentary sitting and the forum was used to announce the TOR, which was not well received by the AFC, which said that it was not a party to the agreement.
Harmon later said that the TOR could be amended in the future, sparking questions and concerns that the deadline had not been met.
Luncheon told reporters yesterday that from his own personal involvement in the process, the deadline was met, while adding that he and Harmon laboured and arrived at the TOR.
He added that after the announcement in parliament, the government and APNU have sought to revisit the terms to include the AFC. “I would not say what was presented was not the final TOR. I would want the AFC to say that. They declined participation, this is a matter of record,” he said, adding that there is now an agreement that AFC will be given an opportunity to revisit their earlier decision.
Later, he said that the composition of the commission has gone a far way but he could not elaborate, since arrangements were still being finalized.
Luncheon said that there have been commitments both internally and externally for members to sit but “until such time that we are able to satisfy them with the details I would not be willing to disclose their names.”
