Mr. Speaker,

It is with deep sadness that I rise to express my horror at the murder of three protesters in Linden on Wednesday July 18^th and to once again express to the people of Linden on behalf of the AFC and all rational thinking Guyanese our deepest sympathies.

I raise also to endorse the motion and ask as the motion advocates that this national Assembly censures and expresses ”no confidence” in the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee over his inability to discharge his responsibility for public security, and request of the President his immediate dismissal or should Minister Rohee’s conscience, honesty and integrity prevail, that he would do the “honorable and gentlemanly” thing and offer his resignation.

Mr. Speaker I am disturbed as often happens in Guyana that we as a nation get caught up with unacceptable explanations to justify continued police violence perpetuated against the Guyanese people and the inability of those in positions of authority to act responsibly and fairly in times of grave injustice.

These senseless killings have placed a further stain on Guyana that is no less severe than the strain of the  killings at Lusignan, Bartica, Lindo Creek and the killing of Yohance Douglas, the torture of a young man in a police station if we are to recall just a few.

The issue today is not over proposed increases in electricity rates and its imposition on the people of Linden but the right of all persons, of all races, creeds, ages, political persuasions, religious beliefs to protest anywhere in this world.

SO what makes this incident more contemptuous is that, firstly, it violates internationally recognised Human Rights  as provided under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3 states “ Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”  and Article 20 (1) that “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”

Secondly, it violates our own Constitution which also guarantees us as citizens, protection of those rights. So the rights of  individuals  protest continues in may parts of the world.

Occupy Wall Street, an ongoing protest began in the USA on September 17, 2011 with hundreds protesting daily.  Two hundred were arrested but none shot dead at point blank range or in the back by the Police.

In 2011 thousands stood in Tahir Square, Egypt protesting the Mubarack administration.  Later Mubarak was charged with the deaths of  some protesters and sentenced to life in prison for complicity in these deaths. The Interior Minister also received a life sentence.

Subsequently the Military Junta took over and during ongoing protests in Tahir Square 24 protesters were killed. This triggered the resignation of the entire cabinet. Recent protests in Spain and in England where in fact the Brits looted stores and burnt buildings, saw the British Metropolitan Police wielding full riot gear as they sought to regain control. They killed no one.

This week, once again, Guyana has found itself in the throes of mourning, mourning not only the lost lives but the death of justice and liberty.

On July 18, 2012, armed ranks of the Guyana Police Force used  bullets against unarmed citizens of our country. When the hale of gunfire stopped three persons lay dead, many others injured, many more were traumatized.

The residents, under the assumption that they were living in a free and democratic society where their rights to life and of freedom to assembly were guaranteed, were that fateful evening protesting against the actions of a government. Their only failure was to assume their rights were guaranteed.

Mr. Speaker, on August 22, 1968 Guyana signed the International covenant on civil and political rights. This places specific responsibilities and obligations on the government of Guyana, whichever government is in place. Guyana ratified its position in 1977 on February.

Article 6 states “Every human being has the inherent right to life.This right shall be protected by law.  No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”.

The Basic Principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials as adopted by the United nations was clearly violated on the evening of July 18^th 2012.

Whereas article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials provides that law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.

Mr. Speaker I want to emphasise, only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty. There is nothing in the event of the evening of July 18^th that  indicate even in the slightest degree that the use of deadly force was warranted.

The seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the treatment of offenders, held in Italy in its resolution 14 stated inter alia, “that the use of force and forearms by law enforcement officials should commensurate with due respect for human rights.”

Mr. Speaker, let me again refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” and Article 20 (1) “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”   What the victims of July 18^th were doing Mr. Speaker, was exercising their human rights and for this they were murdered. As the autopsy show, they were each of them shot  through the heart. Two from the front and one from the back.

Mr. Speaker, going back to the basic principles on the Use of Force by Law Enforcement Officials, and I quote, “Governments and law enforcement agencies shall adopt and implement rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials. In developing such rules and regulations, Governments and law enforcement agencies shall keep the ethical issues associated with the use of force and firearms constantly under review.”

Mr. Speaker, this is clear – it is the responsibility of the government to ensure, no not only a responsibility, but an obligation of the government to ensure that rule and regulations are developed, implemented and adhered to, in the use of force.

In the general provision it is stated, Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms. These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons. For the same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind.

Mr. Speaker, millions of tax dollars have been spent purchasing and equipping law enforcement officers with exactly such equipment but these were not used. The water cannon was not even sent to Linden, the officers were not in full protective gear.

Why were millions spent to equip the police to deal with such eventualities?

The same document states, “ Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.”

Mr. Speaker there is no evidence that other means were tried before live fire was unleashed on the poor citizens of Linden. Mr. Speaker if we do not put a stop to this now, I am afraid, this will become the new modus operandi for the police force.

The basic principles also states that when lawful use of force and forearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life; Mr. Speaker shots through the heart is clearly not intended to minimize injury. Shots to the heart are intended to do only one thing, kill and kill instantly.

Law enforcement officers also have the responsibility to ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment. Mr. Speaker there are eyewitness accounts of persons taking off white shirts and waving it as a surrender flag, but the police just kept shooting. A medical practitioner approached the police requesting assistance for the injured and he was met with vile language and absolute refusal from the police.

Mr. Speaker, the basic principles states that Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law. We of the AFC demand that the officers be charged with murder nothing less will suffice.

Let me remind this honourable House and my colleaguse in Government that exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles. The government must do what is right not only to satisfy the families of those who were murdered but in the eyes of all the citizens of this country, in fact  in the eyes of all the citizens of the world, this government must do what is right.

It is abhorrent that forty seven years after independence Guyana would find itself in a position where the rights of its citizens to protest against injustices and oppression could result in those citizens being gunned down by law enforcement agencies.

In 1924 when urban black dock workers were on strike East Indian workers marched from plantation Ruimveldt to Georgetown in support of the striking British Guiana Labour Union dock workers led by Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow. On their way to Georgetown the colonial British Guiana police force opened fire at Ruimveldt Police Station killing 13 and wounding 24.

In June 1948 East Indian sugar workers at Enmore were protesting for better pay along with working and living conditions when five were shot and killed.

In July 2012, the community of Linden comes to protest for jobs and better economic conditions and they were shot and killed.

It is not about race. It is the system.

In 1924 and 1948 the Police, the preferred instrument of the ruling class, were used as the instrument of oppression. In 1966, we changed the colour of the oppressor and the police force, but the system remained. Today, the police force continues to support the ruling class under the same structure.

If we read the biography of Dr. Cheddi Jagan, we are reminded it is not an issue of race but of the system. It is as ironic as it is tragic that Dr. Jagan’s working class party, the PPP, is now championing the cause of the oppressor.

What we saw unfold in Linden on July 18, 2012 while being reminiscent of a dark past also signals a dismal future. As recent as the immediate post 2011 polls, we witnessed the police using uncalled for violence against a group of protesters at the Square of the Revolution. Some of those protesters were shot in the back with rubber pellets even as they attempted to calmly remove themselves from the area. Some were in fact members of this honourable house.

Yet, there was no condemnation from the government, there was no proper investigation, that act of oppression was excused away by those in authority.

A few short months after, we see live rounds replacing rubber pellets.

As a people, we now need to ask ourselves how far will we allow this degeneration into oppression to go. If we stand by and say nothing on the aggression of our brothers and sisters at Linden we can be assured that one day our turn will come!

Now to the issue of Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility.

No matter how exhaustive the constitutional and international provisions in a democracy, that democracy will suffer irreparably when there is not an understanding by its political actors that there is something called unwritten conventions, which bolster and buttress such written provisions, and which ought to be adhered to so as to create confidence in the system.

At this point I wish to refer to Constitutional and Administrative Law by David Pollard on page 117 under the heading “The individual Responsibility of Ministers” and I quote “…Ministers are accountable for their own private conduct, the general running of their departments and  acts done, or omitted  to be done, by their civil servants, responsibility in the first two cases is clearer than in others. A minister involved in sexual  or financial scandals, particularly those having implications for national security, may have to resign because his activities will so attract the attention of the press that he will no longer be able to carry out departmental duties.”

Many of you will recall the John Profumo affair.”

Political actors who master only the art of democratic centralism, party paramountcy and executive commandism will never know anything about the convention of ministerial responsibility.  Nor will they ever care to know.  From all appearances, it was either the absolute ignorance of this convention, or an unabashed arrogance towards it, which may have been the reason why The Honourable Minister would mistakenly feel that he is not responsible because he was not there.

The convention of individual ministerial responsibility fixes blame on a Minister for all failure of policy and administration whether the Minister himself is at fault or not, or if the failure resulted from departmental maladministration.  In other words, a Minister must take the praise for the successes of his department and the blame for its failures.  This is responsible Ministerial Government which we must strive to perfect, or come close to.  Now when the blame is grave enough, being directly as a result of an error or misjudgement or wanton unlawful conduct on the part of the Minister, such an errant Minister must be fired or tender his resignation.  Otherwise, the entire system becomes undermined; and a dangerous precedent set.

This precedent has been followed daily in several parts of the world but let me bring it closer to home and look at official resignations in the Caribbean

In St. Lucia- Richards Fredericks- Minister of Housing resigned because his personal and diplomatic visa was revoked. Even though he said it was not necessary for his job this happened one month before the St. Lucia elections and was deemed unacceptable to him and the people of St. Lucia.

In Jamaica – James Robertson Minister of Energy and Mining for the JLP resigned immediately when the news became public that his diplomatic visa was revoked by the US. This can be compared to the former police commissioner in Guyana whose visa was revoked in 2006 when he was appointed Commissioner of Police.

In T&T Mary King -Planning Minister resigned because she failed to declare that she had an interest in a family company who received a contact from the Ministry she was responsible for.

Across the political spectrum in Jamaica on the PNP side – Colin Campbell Minister of Information and also PNP General Secretary resigned from both his position of Cabinet and party position over the question of campaign donations

Once again on the PNP side – Carl Blight, the Minister of Housing resigned over corruption in awarding contracts.

On the JLP SIDE: Coren Spencer the Energy Ministry did not only resigned but was taken to court over the Cuban light bulb scandal.

Mike Henry Transport and Works Minister resigned because of allegations of lack of transparency in the Jamaica Development Infrastructural programme which was related to road contracts.

And finally former Prime Minister Bruce Golding resigned over the Dudus affair.

So Mr. Speaker, I call on the Minister of Home Affairs to stand and as an honourable man, to do the right thing. By his own admission he has stated in an interview on NCN that the use of bullets was discussed and he did not sanction their use. If indeed those are his words as reported, and if they are true, It is clear that he is unable to manage the Police Force and they have no respect for him, his orders or instructions.

This is totally unacceptable when the initial reports from the independent pathologists states that all of the men were shot straight through the heart, by bronze capped rounds (not rubber pellets) two from the front and one from the back.

This does not happen is one is intends to injure!

AS the people of Linden have stated: Rohee must go. I thank you.

Please follow and like us: