Dear Editor
LET us compare two instances of police actions, set in two different periods of governance, in 2012 during the PPP/C regime; and in the post-2015 era of a new dispensation, led by the David Granger’s coalition A Partnership for National Unity government.
Beginning during the brutal years of the PPP/C regime, in which peaceful protests were met by state brutality.

*A perfect example of this is the peaceful nurses’ protest in 1997, within the surroundings of the High Court, when tear gas shells and pellets were fired into the crowd of health workers, causing injuries and other physical discomfort. In fact, this had been a period marked by protest marches against the government, and the response had been heavy-handed state retaliatory action.

*The scene next shifts to the 1999 general strike, when peaceful marches for increases in salaries and wages and improved working conditions, were met with state retaliation.

*Another graphic illustration of state response under the PPP/C regime, was during the massive 2012 strike in the bauxite town, when state security was ordered to fire their guns into the huge crowd of peaceful protesters that resulted in the death of three persons.

*The 2012 St. Sidwell shooting incident, when a police contingent fired pellets into a crowd of peaceful marchers, resulting in injuries to some prominent citizens, including a former chief of staff, an attorney-at-law and a Member of Parliament.
We now advance to governance and state responses to protest under the President Granger administration.

*The unique aspect of this particular period is that there has been the absence of the state resorting to heavy-handed methods such as police action in response to extremely provocative situations, as when Bharrat Jagdeo and his MPs disrupted the president during one of his addresses to the National Assembly, in a very riotous manner; an invasion of the Pegasus during an invited address to the GMSA by President Granger; and PPP/C thugs, led by Irfaan Ali, virtually holding a coalition government minister hostage in her motor vehicle as they sought to overturn the latter, again in the precincts of the Pegasus.
No one could have faulted state security had they decided to deploy offensive actions in all three situations, since, first, it involved very disruptive and disrespectful behaviour that impeded the president from delivering an address in the nation’s Parliament, in which instance, the chamber should have been cleared of the malcontents. Secondly, at the Pegasus, it involved strict security considerations with regard to the safety of the President, and the minister of government, especially given the fact that the latter’s physical safety was under serious threat. In all three instances, there had been restraint.
However, last Friday’s incident at Bath Settlement has to be recorded as the first and only time, when given the circumstance of a detachment of policemen sent to maintain law and order, being recklessly attacked by armed residents. In this instance, despite the devious lies peddled by PPP/C supporters, some of them part of the mob that attacked the lawmen, the police fired their weapons into air before their ammo was finished. This became the signal for the attacks on the lawmen to continue, causing them to take evasive action, seeking refuge in nearby yards.

There is no jurisdiction in which this more-than-lenient action shown by the police, when their personal safety was imperilled, would have continued without direct offensive action. No law enforcement, given the pre-meditated attack on its contingent last Friday would have failed to resort to the necessary action, lawfully required within its Standard Operating Procedures.

The bottom line is that those brave men, including Sergeant Ibaran, who was almost killed during the cutlass attack and has suffered very serious injuries to his person, answered the call of duty to protect citizens, in the capacity as one who represents the law. In such circumstance, he is apolitical. Therefore, for him to be described as ‘traitor’ and other dirty derogatory names, reflects a mindset of its authors as being seriously misplaced and dangerously unhinged, as well as being agents of lawlessness, and purveyors of mindless violence. They should be ashamed of themselves, for attacking a very important category of public servant whose job is to protect even them.

However, the main thrust of this letter about human rights record, the coalition has shown in every way an understanding of the sanctity and right to life, since there have been no extra-judicial killings; with respect for the rights of its citizens, irrespective of political affiliation, a core feature of its stewardship. It has shot no one, teargassed no protest marches, or has any citizen been abducted and disappeared during its tenure. Friday’s incident in which a resident lost his life was an exception rather than the norm, albeit in very threatening and grave circumstance which can be defended.

For the PPP/C when in government, such attributes had never been a part of its consideration in dealing with challenges. The Linden and St Sidwell’s incidents are just two of the more numerous examples of how the PPP/C dealt with human rights issues in Guyana

Regards
Earl Hamilton

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_11_2020