-Office of the President
MP Anil Nandlall says meeting was private
The Oliver Hinckson controversy took a stunning turn yesterday when the ex-army officer said that he had received an emissary from President Bharrat Jagdeo on his offer to mediate with the gunmen, a claim that the Office of the President swiftly denounced as a “blatant lie”.
Hinckson, in a statement released to the media yesterday, said he was met by a high-ranking Member of Parliament, sent by President Jagdeo, prior to the sedition charge against him, for the purpose of engaging him specifically on his mediation offer.
However, the Office of the President (OP) in a response, vehemently denied the claim, calling it “a total fabrication and a blatant lie clearly intended to mislead the public and create confusion about the president’s rejection of talks with criminals.”
It has since emerged that Hinckson met PPP/C MP and attorney-at-law Anil Nandlall, though Nandlall insisted yesterday that it was in his private legal capacity that he met the ex-army officer.
A statement bearing yesterday’s date and Hinckson signature said that after Mayor Hamilton Green’s press conference of February 1 which he had attended and where he made the speech that is now the basis for the charges against him, the President sent a “trusted” emissary to Hinckson and the two met at a prominent social club for two and a half hours. The statement did not name the emissary. It said the meeting was for the purpose of engaging Hinckson specifically on the offer of mediation, which he proposed at the City Hall press conference.
“The emissary, who is a member of the central executive of the ruling party, held extensive discussions on issues which arose out of the offer of mediation by Oliver Hinckson,” the statement said.
It further stated that at the conclusion of the meeting the President’s representative assured Hinckson that he would contact him shortly on the matter that had been discussed. The statement concluded, “The subsequent preferment of charges against Oliver Hinckson is an act of gross political vindictiveness.”
A press release from OP yesterday said it had noted the statement with the signature, which appeared to be Hinckson’s. Dismissing it as a blatant lie and a total fabrication, OP said: “At no point in time has the President dispatched any emissary and/or made arrangement for any engagement whatsoever with the sedition accused, Mr Oliver Hinckson.”
The OP release contended that the Hinckson statement was clearly intended to mislead the public and create confusion about the President’s rejection of talks with criminals.
‘Certain discussions’
This newspaper later learnt that the emissary to whom Hinckson referred was Nandlall. Stabroek News was privy to the recording of a comment, which Nandlall gave to the Government Information Agency (GINA) outside the National Assembly yesterday, in which he admitted meeting Hinckson, but never on behalf of anyone.
Nandlall said he had not seen the statement, but had learnt that Hinckson had sought to represent that he met him on behalf of the President, the PPP or perhaps the government. He denied this.
“I wish to say categorically that I have never met with Mr Hinckson for or on behalf of the President, for or on behalf of the PPP, or for on behalf of the Government of Guyana,” he said. He added that he had no authority to do so.
Asked whether he had met Hinckson in any other capacity, Nandlall said he met him in his capacity as a private attorney-at-law in practice. He said he and Hinckson had certain discussions, which the ethics of his profession prevented him from disclosing. Asked whether he was consulted by Hinckson for legal representation, Nandlall said no, adding that he was neither consulted nor retained on any of the matters before the court against Hinckson. He said he would not represent Hinckson, even if he intended to retain him.
Later yesterday, a reliable source informed this newspaper that Nandlall had advised Hinckson that he was meeting him on behalf of the President. Contacted and quizzed further about this, Nandlall held fast to his denial. “No, no, not at all,” he told Stabroek News.
Nandlall told this newspaper that Hinckson had asked to meet him, and not the other way around. Asked whether he was hoping Hinckson would be his client, he said he agreed to attend the meeting because the man had requested it and he wanted to know what Hinckson wanted to meet him about. “I thought it was in my capacity as a lawyer,” he said.
Since the meeting took place prior to charges being brought against Hinckson, this newspaper asked Nandlall what he felt Hinckson would have been securing his service for. But the lawyer said he simply wanted to know what Hinckson wanted to meet him about.
Nandlall said that as the meeting progressed, he realized that discussions were heading in a different and “unexpected” direction and he immediately advised Hinckson that he was not authorised to participate in such discussions.
Stabroek News has since learnt that Nandlall might not have met Hinckson alone and was likely accompanied by another lawyer.
The statement
On February 1, less than a week after the January 26, brutal slaying of 11 men, women and children at Lusignan, East Coast Demerara, Hinckson attended a press conference hosted by Mayor Green. Addressing those present, he suggested that the killings were more than a criminal problem as all the evidence pointed to that. He then recommended that there should be some form of discourse between the government and the disenchanted.
“There must be some discourse between the so-called insurgents, those with a grievance and those who have the capacity to assist in that negotiation,” he had said.
Hinckson further said that he and other ex-servicemen were prepared, “fully knowing that we do not have a tacit hand or an actual hand in any kind of mischief, but we are prepared to risk our lives, venture into Buxton and assist in some kind of negotiation between the government and the disenchanted.”
It is not clear whether Hinckson’s appearance at the mayor’s press meeting was prearranged, but Green has since said that the former army officer had gone there to address a matter with the council, which explained his presence there.
Hinckson has since been charged with advocating the commission of a terrorist act and uttering seditious statements. (See other story on page 15)
Hinckson was not the only person in support of some from of discourse. Social activists Tacuma Ogunseye and Eusi Kwayana have suggested this sort of action in the past, and Kwayana recently made public his views on the issue stating that Hinckson’s offer was important. President Jagdeo has been adamant that this was not the way to go.
In a letter to this newspaper published on March 13, Kwayana pointed to similar sentiments aired by Jesuit, Father Malcolm Rodrigues, proposing negotiations with civilian gunmen.
Rodrigues, in an interview with this newspaper, had suggested that the government and joint opposition talk directly with the criminal/terrorist group roaming the backlands of Buxton or those connected with the group to find out exactly what their problem was, so as to lessen violence and its repercussions. He said if that failed the administration would have a major situation to deal with, possibly, in the long run.
President Jagdeo has consistently resisted such a proposal. Speaking at the annual tribute ceremony held on March 2 at Babu John, Port Mourant in memory of the late president and founder of the People’s Progressive Party, Dr Cheddi Jagan, Jagdeo addressed the issue of the killings at Lusignan and subsequent slaughter of 12 men at Bartica, less than a month later. He had said that the only way the recent spate of killings would come to an end was if the perpetrators were apprehended or killed and support was integral to the process.
On the matter of negotiation with criminals, Jagdeo said, “any person who could watch an innocent child sleeping and kill [him or her], won’t listen to reason.”
Meanwhile, two days after the Bartica massacre, Jagdeo had visited the area after cutting short a visit to New York. He said the two killings were committed by the same group and the only way to “end this” would be to pursue the killers and find them “since you can’t reason with people who commit these types of crimes”.
