April 2 ,2021
It is not often that a funeral oration attracts nationwide attention. But during the service for the late Ricardo Fagundes at the Guyana Motor Racing & Sports Club on Monday public interest was aroused when Mr Roger Khan stood at the microphone to tell the mourners to “Make no mistake about it, Ricardo died in my place. Every single one of those bullets was meant for me.”
In and of itself this news did not come as too much of a surprise; it was the fact that Mr Khan chose to deliver it in person in a public setting which took onlookers unconnected to the ceremony off guard. Given what is known of his history from 2002 to his arrest four years later in Suriname, no one has any doubt that he must have accumulated a number of enemies in the course of his activities. Exactly how many of these would have had the resources to mount the kind of operation which brought about Mr Fagundes’ demise cannot even be guessed at. In addition, no one knows whether Mr Khan has made any enemies since that time. Either way, he was not about to enlighten the funeral gathering at the GMR&SC as to why someone would want to target him.
Except for the period shortly after Mr Khan returned to this country following his deportation from the United States in September 2019, he has maintained a fairly low profile. He was questioned in relation to a fracas in a bar at one stage, but the matter was never pursued, and early on he accused the then Crime Chief of ‘persecuting’ him. The Coalition government had made various statements prior to his deportation that there would be investigations into any crimes he may have committed in this country, more particularly his alleged involvement in the killings of Ronald Waddell and boxing coach Donald Allison. According to then President David Granger he was not charged because there was a lack of evidence which would stand up in court, in addition to which witnesses had refused to come forward.
At the service, Mr Khan was understandably much affected by the death of a man he called his “son” and who had died in his stead. His calls for justice in relation to this killing, however, must have caused those who lived through the difficult times early in the millennium to reflect on the irony of his words, not to mention the paradox of his situation. “The hearts of men bleed for justice,” he said, “It is a natural, God-given, inalienable thing that God gives man.” He was the person, however, who was alleged to have been given latitude by the PPP/C government of the post 2002 era to go after those he deemed criminals, and his gang of private gunmen was allegedly connected to a large number of murders. Those killed during the crime wave, it should be said, were also entitled to justice.
Mr Khan was suitably dismissive of the Guyana Police Force, which he accused of mounting a compromised investigation into Mr Fagundes’ killing. He was particularly critical of the fact that the police did not mount a road block on the East Bank, or the East Coast for that matter, although this is common practice when crimes of this nature occur. While the police still have not confirmed this, a burned-out car found at Swan on the Linden-Soesdyke Highway is widely assumed to have been the vehicle used by the killers.
Giving an account of the progress of this car, which had been stolen, Mr Khan said it had waited outside the Palm Court, where Mr Fagundes was shot down, for 20 minutes. “A stolen car, stolen plates with at least two men inside [who] had high calibre weapons… and they shot him at 10.01. Then they drove for 30 minutes. At 10.29, they turned off the East Bank junction. They … drove from Palm Court all the way to the most popular and busiest highway in Guyana … didn’t encounter a single police patrol,” he said.
Home Affairs Minister Robeson Benn had earlier told this newspaper that he had been informed roadblocks were set up along the East Bank roadways, although he declined to say precisely where. However, he qualified this by saying it was a question of timing and the passing of information. “There was an issue of what vehicle and where it was heading and so on…” he said, going on to inform the reporter that some “reviews” were being undertaken. One can infer from this that indeed no roadblocks were set up in time.
One suspects, given the haphazard way in which the Force has been functioning for many years, that they have really never rehearsed routines for the fast deployment of roadblocks when major crimes are committed in the city. It is a question of the relaying of accurate information from the scene as soon as possible, effective systems of communication, and the identification of senior officers responsible for the actions which must be taken. Mr Khan has said that police at the scene were “harassing” witnesses in minutes, and there was one state security vehicle which arrived there in “seconds”. The latter was there most likely because the gunshots were well within earshot of State House.
Police inefficiency and/or incompetence, however, is not the same thing as police corruption, which Mr Khan is suggesting in this instance. There is something else too. One of the killers had a 9mm pistol, but the other had an AK-47. The two had the hallmark of professional hit-men, whether local or brought in from elsewhere, as has happened in the past. They would not have been disposed to show their documents to the police at a roadblock, let alone allow their vehicle to be searched or to accept being detained. In fact, they would have been disinclined to stop at all, and even if the roadblock police had been armed, they would not have been in possession of an assault rifle.
The fugitives consequently would have had no compunction about spraying the police with gunfire, and if civilians had been caught in the crossfire, it would not have caused them sleepless nights. It was, in other words, a situation presenting danger not only to the police, but also the public. Something of this kind requires a response from a specialised armed unit, possibly even including members of the GDF. And that would require systems in place, and practice in responding.
“This assassination has a particular signature to it, especially in light of the police posture over the past week. Not a single raid, not a single arrest, not a single witness,” said Mr Khan. In the light of this he appealed to President Ali for a “clean and impartial” investigation: “Mr President, we are asking you, I am asking you on behalf of the family of Ricardo, to give this investigation the very same attention that you gave the Henry boys…” While the comparison might have caused not a few people to give a bit of a gulp, it is true that it is the job of the Police Force to follow up every murder. Mr Khan will perhaps recall that this was not done in any number of cases a decade-and-a-half to two decades ago.
The GPF has denied that its investigation is compromised, and has said that it is pursuing all leads to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice. The matter, it said, was being treated with “seriousness” and “alacrity” by investigators of the Force’s Major Crimes Unit, and that Mr Khan himself had been questioned as part of the investigation and had given them a written statement.
One might have thought that the authorities would not want people killed by AK-47s outside a popular nightspot in the vicinity of the President’s official residence; it is not good for Guyana’s image, and might frighten off investors. As such, they would want the matter solved. However, the Force is hardly doing itself any favours by not in general terms updating the public on its progress. Furthermore, why after all this time can it not confirm or disconfirm that the vehicle found at Swan was in fact the one the assassins used?
Some of the shortcomings of the police have their origins in the period when Mr Khan was active. He was alleged to have had contacts in the Force, certain of whose members worked for him. He also took out an advertisement in some of the local newspapers saying that he had been a crime fighter on behalf of the Guyana Government. If he feels now that the investigation into the death of Mr Fagundes is tainted by corruption, one possible reason is that it is based on his earlier experience. He should cast his memory back to the times when a compromised, fragmented Police Force allowed him to operate with impunity.
It should also be mentioned that the GPF refuted Mr Khan’s allegation that its members have been intimidating and harassing family members of the victim and their supporters during the investigations. No one knows what Mr Khan means by ‘intimidating’ and ‘harassing’; all that can be said is that the police will have to undertake thorough questioning of all those connected with the victim, although not in a hostile way. They have few other avenues by which they can elicit background information.
And now that Mr Khan has said openly that he was the target, he should be able to help the police with information about how he comes to that conclusion and exactly who he thinks might have him in their sights. Perhaps he doesn’t want the police to have too much background information, but he can hardly blame them if as a consequence they are not garnering enough data. Information leading to an arrest is not acquired in a vacuum.
After saying that the state security apparatus had failed Mr Fargundes, Mr Khan went on to comment: “I am telling you history can tell us that when there is no state security, lawlessness will prevail.” How true. But then of all the people in this country he is the one who knows that best.
