Dear Editor,

This letter is long delayed to allow me to verify certain facts. It is purely a layman’s response.

The learned Commission of jurists has enquired into the Linden shootings of July 18, 2012.  It handed down its report early last month, examining, but justifying the use of deadly force.

The strengths and priorities of these Linden Commission members seemed to be mainly in criminal and civil law, and to a lesser extent in human rights and the history of the right to assemble, petition and protest. Anything like a few hours of civil disobedience is for them a crime. Since three persons were killed, the members were bound to pay attention to the Right to Life, but were too ready to compromise it on the evidence of police witnesses. Since the Commissioners claim to base their findings on evidence, where is the evidence that the three men killed were about to harm others? Licence to kill is just where it was in 1948.

The Commission paid less attention to the fundamental Right of Assembly. Without that right the Commission’s members would not have been able to vote in their national elections. The right of assembly became a fundamental right, not because people need it to hold or attend a public dance, or a cocktail party. It became a fundamental right because political assembly often requires the use and occupation of public space. The freedom of the voiceless could not and cannot grow or expand without it. There are always rules to control it, but the penalty for breach is not gunfire. In Guyana the law regulating assembly is the Public Order Act, passed by the “Interim government” in 1955. The Criminal Offences Act (8:01) section 307 to

309 does not regulate public demonstrations. The State and the Police chose that law (8:01) as a shelter for their blunders. The Commission, not being a court, did not remove the shelter. Without allowing the police to shelter under the Criminal Offences Act, the Commission could not find that the shooting was “justified”.

After the Enmore shooting the Boland Enquiry found that the shooting was justified, but that “some of the firing went beyond the requirements of the situation.”

Attorneys at Law Debidin and Sugrim Singh secured civil damages from the courts.

The Linden Commission’s report shows the process by which the Commission found justification for the shooting. The Report says, “Acting Commissioner Brummel testified that he gave no instructions to anyone to employ the use of firearm, but there was complaint that other explosions sounding like gunshot were heard.” SS Hicken who was on July 18, 2012 the divisional Commander of division “E&F” testified as follows.

Mr Knight: And from the report you received, having regard to your experience, did you think that that gave rise to the justification for the use of a lethal barred weapon?

Mr Hicken: Yes, sir

Mr Knight: It did?

Mr Hicken: Yes, sir.

Mr Knight: Did you have any report that firearms were being discharged other than by the police?

Mr Hicken: Yes, sir.

Mr Knight: At what stage?

Mr. Hicken: The Unit Commander informed me just before the tear smoke was used.

Mr Knight: Which was at?

Mr Hicken: Around 17.05 hours going on to around 18 hours. He said he heard three or four explosions coming from the crowd on the bridge. As a result he used tear smoke canisters. He told me that via cell phone”

Note that in the decisive question, Mr Hicken relied on the words and formulation of the questioning Commissioner, Mr. Knight.

ASP Todd then gave supporting evidence.

He said that he and his men heard explosions sounding like gunshots. The explosions were heard from the Linmine compound and from the bridge itself. The sounds scared some policemen, he said. One police officer was hit on the head with an object. It is to be noted that members of the crowd were hit with ammunition, some fatally.

At the end of the report the Commission had wise words for the holders of power and decision makers. They underlined the global importance of human rights principles, which their findings have in my view ignored. Thanks to them too for reciting some vital ground rules for general instruction. They also applied some old principles like “Two wrongs do not make a right,” but they did so selectively. The Commission was in a dilemma of its own choosing. It found, “Firing in that way in similar circumstances should never be repeated. Even if the use of the shotgun was reasonable, and we do not conclude that it was, it cannot be that it is used negligently or recklessly. Based on the foregoing we are of the view that the policy on the use of force should be reviewed and done urgently.” That slap on the wrist for a second offence is no redress for the loss of life. The Commission had before it only the July 18, 2012 incident. But the police had done that type of “firing” by shotgun in Georgetown on December 7. 2011, and had injured several persons seriously.

Yet the Commission also found, “Nonetheless, the discharge of ammunition itself by the police in the circumstances described by ASP Todd was justified having regard to the fact that the police were confronted by a very hostile crowd and there was no clear intention on the part of the police to kill or cause injury to anyone. The apparent intention was to scare the protestors into removing from the Bridge.”

Like the Peace of God, this ruling “passeth all understanding.”

Any law that can allow the application of collective punishment needs radical revision.

The Linden Organisers planned the protest not as an act outside the Law, but with permission requested and granted under the Public Order Act. That is where any judgment of intent must begin. Any neglect of the conditions imposed by the police would be a breach of the POA. If a group of persons decided to block the bridge to ensure attention that would be an act of civil disobedience. Modern political culture allows creative, on-the-spot forms of freedom of expression that are non-violent.

The Commission did not consider the effect of false intelligence in that July 18, 2012 situation in Linden. The acting Commissioner of Police told the Commission that the Force had information that some protestors in Linden would be armed. The Commissioners found that there was no evidence of anyone but police discharging arms, or carrying arms. The people should be praised for clearly peaceful intentions. Nor did the Commission comment on the “state of mind” of the police arriving in Linden expecting to be attacked with gunfire. Who could have put that idea into their system? It reminds us of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction that took the USA into Iraq after the terrible Twin Towers attack.

Rumour has always worked mischief in Guyanese politics and Linden on July 18, 2012 was no exception.

The Public Order Act (1955) has its own penalties for breaking the provisions of the Act. None of them is a death sentence. I confidently decline to accept the application of police immunity when the conditions for immunity set by the Constitution, over and above those of Chapter 8:01 did not exist. These are found in Article 150 of the Constitution, the Supreme Law. No Commission should ignore a Constitutional provision that in plain words favours the citizens’ fundamental rights. If article 150 does not apply the Commission should have said why. We need to know. This is how people learn to govern.

The Police repressed the permitted Linden demonstration when it apparently got out of order and, according to police claims, failed to stick to the police guidelines.

This would be an offence against the Public Order Act, not a capital offence. The Police used the Criminal Offences Act to deal with the breaches of the Public Order Act and the learned Commissioners saw nothing wrong with that switch. Perhaps it is something the police could or could not do lawfully.  As a person who with hundreds of others took part in illegal marches when permission was not available, I should like to ask the Commissioners and the authorities when last the Criminal Offences Act was invoked and applied in unarmed protest situations.

Being now long absent, I rely on Red Thread women’s suspicion that the police used a “proclamation” in their presence, with threats of tear gas, to stop a people’s march of aggrieved people from Lusignan, days after the 2008 massacre. That crisis march did not take place.

Perhaps the COA (8:01) was applied on December 6, 2011, when the police opened fire with rubber bullets on a peaceful march in Georgetown. The police said then that the demonstrators had no permission. On that occasion Minister of Home Affairs Rohee came out publicly against the police and denounced the shootings. This is a fact that I as a truth seeker cannot ignore even as I criticise that Minister. It is anybody’s guess whether the Minister suffered any sanction within his political organisation. As an aside, for the public, not for the Commission, officers Hicken and Todd had been called in after the December 2011 rubber bullets shooting to help investigate the incident. More and more it seems that there is some Intelligence mischief at work in the Linden situation, and innocent people should not be sacrificed for rogue intelligence. Guyana, I am told, now has its own CIA. It is hard to tell how far the clowning will go.

The Criminal Offences Act includes the Proclamation used on July 18, 2012 but that Act does not define proclamation. I am subject to public correction. I have found a definition of “proclamation” only in the Constitution and there it means “proclamation of a state of emergency by the President.”

The evidence of MP Mr. Desmond Trotman was that ASP Hicken in his hearing gave orders to a police driver to drive towards a section of the crowd on the bridge.  The Report described Miss Vanessa Kissoon, MP, Mr. Trotman MP and Region 10 Chairman Mr. Sharma Solomon, as influential, the Commission’s report did not mention MP Trotman’s very credible allegations. This is a highly unfortunate omission, as it helps any likely cover up. Without it, there is no mention of provocation by the police. This is concealing from the public a factor in favour of the accused body of protestors.

With all the crowd’s recorded hostility, justifying for the Commission the use of deadly fire, the police testified only of one officer being unfortunately hit in the head with a stone or other missile.

The Criminal Offences Act lays down that those who try to obstruct the making of the proclamation or refuse to disperse within fifteen minutes after it is read, or those who use arms, or violence to hinder the reading, should be arrested for a felony and, if convicted, sentenced to imprisonment for life.

This is where those who try to “apprehend” or arrest offenders, and happen to kill them or injure them are placed above the law, by the law, and cannot be liable. The police testified that over “twenty -five minutes” had elapsed between the reading of the Proclamation and the shooting. The law required only fifteen minutes. And we are not talking about dispersing “sheep”! The Commissioners to their credit pursued the logistics rigorously, but were deceived. Crime Chief Mr. Seelall Persaud’s  answers defended only policemen  “actually on duty” and  those “deployed for duty” and need further domestic study.  There is no claim of any attempt to arrest anyone  there, or “apprehend” persons, for example,,   one with a red hat, another with a stick or stone, explosive device, or a firearm. No such evidence! Their claim of attempts to disperse was not supported by detail and not weighty enough to justify loss of lives. If we transfer the events from the area of peaceful protest, even civil disobedience, to the area of crime, then the benefit of the doubt should go the deceased. There is not a scrap of evidence against them. We must reject the feudal right to open fire on any unarmed body of protestors or others.

Another factor not considered shows up the disgraceful management of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Unit dispatched to Linden had been on duty since 3am. By 11am they had worked an 8 hour day. By 5 p.m. they had worked 14 hours. It is anybody’s guess where their nerves were.

I salute those witnesses who appeared and defended the right of people to assemble in protest.

You can’t shoot people just for blocking a bridge in their own community!

What the police did in their testimony to the Commission was to establish that they used unequal deadly force and that their documentation of arms and ammunition and their use was worse in 2012 than in 1948 when all weapons were audited and sixteen live rounds declared missing, so Commissioners, please note. The Commission rightly gave the Minister a clean sheet regarding the orders to shoot. It was wrongly silent regarding the mess for which he is responsible.

When a trade unionist from the area Mr. Lincoln Lewis explained the tradition of the bridge and what it has meant, a Commissioner said, “We are not interested in the history of that bridge. You were asked a specific question and that is the question to which you must respond.”

The political witnesses who appeared and spoke truthfully earned rebukes from the Commission. The State and police with their mysterious 00 ammunition, and their “reckless” gun play won the prize of justification.

Economists like Smith, Ricardo and Marx all contributed to the general body of Labour theories of value.

In their compensation awards, the Commissioners seemed to be applying a “wages” theory of the value human life.  The lower the wages, the cheaper is the life of a human being according the Commission’s awards.

Yours faithfully Eusi Kwayana