Last week’s press conferences and debates in the National Assembly on the motion calling on the government “to establish an impartial and independent commission of inquiry to examine and investigate the allegations of torture made against the Joint Services of Guyana,” among other things, degenerated into a display of dissimulation.
Beneath the spin-mongering, there did not seem to be, even rudimentarily, a commitment to authentic politics aimed at thoroughly investigating and eradicating the practice of torture in the security forces. Questions about the gross violation of human rights have been turned into a grotesque game of words. The consequences of international perceptions of official condoning of crime have also been overlooked.
Minister of Agriculture Mr Robert Persaud attempted to redefine and downgrade the allegations of torture as “roughing up.” This was a disturbing oversimplification of a serious crime, the gravity of which is still to be grasped. He seemed to suggest that the quelling of the troubles on the East Coast justified the ‘roughing up’ of suspects during interrogation.
On the lighter side, Ms Gail Teixeira, Presidential Adviser on Governance, disregarding the classification of torture as a crime against humanity, cheerily recommended that victims of the “excesses of the security forces,” some of whom have died, should seek redress through the Prison’s Visiting Committees, the Police Complaints Authority, the Police Station Management Committees and the Office of Professional Responsibility. And Mr Clement Rohee, Minister of Home Affairs, lightly dismissed the motion as a device to gain political points, claiming that the opposition tends to increase its attacks on the joint services whenever they seem to be getting the upper hand on crime.
Outside of the National Assembly, official spokespersons spun the party line of relativism. Both President Bharrat Jagdeo and General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party Mr Donald Ramotar assessed the allegations of torture in relative terms, not as precepts of the law but as exigencies of the troubles on the East Coast. The President stated plainly that, in response to the criminal violence in Buxton and the loss of weapons by the Guyana Defence Force, suspects were “questioned aggressively.”
Avoiding the actual issue of torture, Mr Ramotar accused the parliamentary opposition of giving tacit support to criminal activities and trying to tarnish the image of the security forces by bringing a motion about torture against the police. According to him, the troubles demonstrated the terroristic nature of the criminals and, hence, the joint services deserved appreciation not condemnation.
Admitting that the interrogation “…wasn’t a tea party” and that the “questioning was aggressive,” Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr Roger Luncheon acknowledged that the inquiry found that there was “roughing up” of those who alleged that they have been tortured. He asserted, however, that neither the board of inquiry nor the Defence Board conceded that the “roughing up” was synonymous with torture. But laymen’s notions of municipal law often differ from those of international jurists and the cancerous consequences of the allegations of torture will fester for years to come until the matter is settled.
The administration seems to have decided to spin its way out of the controversy by convincing the public that “roughing up” innocent suspects is justifiable. It also seeks to refocus attention on the image of the suppression of the gangs rather than the reality of the abuse of humans who evidently had nothing to do with either the troubles or the gangs.
What does a country do when the evidence suggests that its leaders not only refuse to punish the perpetrators of crimes against humanity but also resort to spin to rationalise their conduct?