Dear Editor,
Judging from your Tuesday, January 22 lead article headlined “Weapons issued to senior PNC official not returned – army sources say issuance went beyond 1979,” it seems to me that the serious charges of torture by the army against its own and against civilians have been outmanoeuvred from current headlines by ongoing revelations of the army-issued weapons to the PNC regime ministries, officials and agencies.
If this is the army’s own attempt to spin the issue away from torture charges against it, then it may work for a while, but at the end of the day, the truth about the torture allegations and the army weapons issue should be allowed to emerge so it can be dealt with openly and put to rest in a manner that is satisfactory to all.
And because the army is now being placed in the spotlight, I think this is where our focus should turn in order to ensure it remains neutral in any political dog fight between the PPP and PNC. The last thing the country needs right now is for the army to appear to be openly siding with any political party or against any political party.
So far, the outbursts by the PPP and the President on the army weapons issue has put the PNC on the defensive, and while anonymous sources in the army may be inadvertently siding with the PPP by opening up on the army’s past weapons dealings with the former PNC regime, the PNC, as an opposition party, is free to trade barbs with the PPP or the regime, but has to guard against the tactical error of issuing any statement inimical to the interests or image of the army.
That said, if there are persons in-the-know who can bring much needed light to the army weapons issue, they would have to be the army’s former Chiefs of Staff who served between 1976 and whatever date the army’s records show that the last weapon was issued and to whom.
These persons could include Mr. Norman McLean and Mr. Joe Singh, both retired army generals now employed in the local private sector. Problem is, I really don’t know if they would place themselves in a position where they have to defend themselves or their decisions, or if they would be willing to explain the environment and circumstances in which the army operated during their respective tenures that would allow for such issuances to be made.
But assuming they do talk, don’t they run the risk of unearthing sensitive security details that could make the waters murkier and more turbulent if they are asked to talk about national security decisions during their tenure under a former government?
If this is the extent of the route the PPP or its regime really wants to go, then, after these men have spoken, let the army’s records be bared and commitments made by all and sundry to either retrieve the weapons or conclude the weapons have been sold, lost or rendered useless.
But seriously, I still don’t know how these can ever be retrieved after more than thirty years, and especially when little progress has been made in retrieving the remainder of the 30 AK-47 weapons stolen only a few years ago from Camp Ayanganna.
The more pertinent questions that should be asked by all Guyanese, is not just why the guns were not returned, but whether those guns are actually being used by criminals in the execution of crimes? Can ballistic tests done on spent shells distinguish between which guns are from the army and which guns are from across our porous borders where narcotics are also easily smuggled?
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
