Rohee can speak but we’re not acting on anything he says
Dear Editor,
The ruling by Chief Justice Chang affirms that as an elected MP, Rohee could not be gagged. I share this opinion and, indeed, no one objected or protested when Rohee voted on issues, which is a form of speech in Parliament.
Whether he could speak as Home Affairs Minister in the face of the no-confidence motion touching and concerning his discharge of that portfolio is another matter. He may speak but we will not hear him or act upon any thing he may say, which is a political risk for the government.
When Rohee was not in play, we saw less rancour and greater cooperation amongst the parties. He could aid these positive vibes by staying under wraps until the Privileges Committee disposes of the contention.
As for the APNU motion for an inquiry into violence during 2004 and 2010, we feel that though it focuses on a period when Guyana experienced the greatest danger of becoming a narco-state, any meaningful probe must be wider and ought to begin from the immediate post independence period. It must include rigged elections, attacks on press freedom, political violence and House of Israel thuggery, etc.
Most of all a comprehensive inquiry must help to bring healing, after the example of South Africa. It is late in the day but we need light to shine on our divisive past of almost 50 years of PNC-PPP rule, and our version with a Truth Commission may help.
Moses V. Nagamootoo
AFC Vice-Chairman