Dear Editor,
I refer to my letter of 27th November 2012 which was published in your newspaper concerning the Commission of Inquiry into the deaths of three persons from Linden and my expectation that the matter of ministerial responsibility as it is understood and practised within the Commonwealth would have been considered and a finding made by the Commissioners on the matter with reasons being given.
The Commissioners without dissent and without giving reasons unanimously exonerated the Minister responsible for the police despite the fact that the Minister at some stage of the confrontation was in communication with the security forces that were dispatched to the scene of the confrontation.
In my letter to your newspaper I expressed my expectation that in arriving at their findings the Commission of Inquiry would pronounce collectively or individually on the issue of the responsibility or otherwise of the Minister, as the minister of government responsible for the police.
I find the Commissioners’ exoneration of the Minister puzzling having regard to the jurisprudence which has been developed within the Commonwealth concerning ministerial responsibility. There has been a statement in the press attributed to the Attorney-General to the effect that the Constitution of Guyana recognizes only the collective responsibility of the cabinet. Whatever may have been the intention of the framers of that provision of the constitution, it is my opinion that it does not affect the right of the minister to resign his or her appointment or the right of the President to relieve an individual minister of his or her portfolio.
The Commissioners also appear to have overlooked two legislative enactments which may have provided lawful excuse for the actions of the police – The Public Order Ordinance 1955, and the Guyana Independence Order, 1966. The former which was enacted by the British colonial administration in the wake of the civil unrest in then pre-independence British Guiana, gave the police wide powers to break up demonstrations and to control marches and like occurrences. Although this enactment is contrary to the fundamental rights provisions which have been a feature of all of Guyana’s post-independence constitutions, section 5(4) of the Guyana Independence Order, 1966, saved the ordinance. That section gave the governor general power by order to bring laws such as the ordinance into conformity with the constitution by 26th May 1967. Unfortunately, we failed to take advantage of it, and may now do so only by a specific Act of Parliament.
Yours faithfully,
Brynmor T I Pollard, SC
