– Ex-Linden commander
Senior Superintendent Clifton Hicken, the former Divisional Commander responsible for Linden, yesterday said that he did not have the authority to direct police ranks to shoot at protestors in the town on July 18, when three men were killed and others wounded.
“I don’t have any authority to give any rank of the TSU [Tactical Service Unit] orders to shoot,”
Hicken said in response to APNU MP and attorney Basil Williams, who was at the time examining him as hearings by the Commission of Inquiry into the shootings continued yesterday.
Three men, Allan Lewis, Ron Somerset, and Shemroy Bouyea, were fatally shot near the Mackenzie-Wismar Bridge, where residents were protesting over the increase in electricity tariffs.
Hicken, who also said he was unaware that anyone was killed until the day after the shooting, explained to Williams that in order for the unit to take action, Commissioner of Police (ag) Leroy Brumell, would have to pass the directions.
The witness, now the deputy commander of ‘B’ Division, had earlier noted that the TSU was requested to support the 40 other ranks on the ground, which, he pointed out, is the standard deployment number for any march. According to the witness, the 40 ranks were not equipped to remove the crowd that had grown on the Mackenzie-Wismar Bridge. “That function was to be dealt with by the TSU. They [the other ranks] were to monitor a procession, not disperse a crowd,” he said.
When prompted by Williams, Hicken explained that he had made a request to Brumell for the deployment of a unit from the TSU to support the division. “Yes, I did that,” he said, when asked whether the TSU was sent at his request. However, he pointed out that he could not make the decision to have them sent there. “Yes, it is under my administrative authority but to have them was not my call,” he clarified. He also noted that according to the force’s SOPs, only the Police Commissioner or, in his absence, the Deputy Commissioner of Operations could deploy the riot unit.
During his examination, Williams suggested that it was Hicken’s intention to prevent the planned five-day protest by “slaughtering the people,” prompting attorney Peter Hugh, one of the lawyers for the police force, to point out that the accusation formed no evidence.
“I deny fully… you said I failed to act and I am saying I acted in accordance to the SOPs [Standard Operating Procedures]. You said I had a motive and I am saying I hadn’t no motive. I acted as the commander dealing with the ranks under my command. With the TSU, I have no power to direct them nor does any other divisional commander,” Hicken reiterated.
When asked about the weaponry carried by both the TSU and the Linden Anti-Crime patrols that were present, Hicken said he was unaware. “That is not my responsibility,” he stated. Earlier, he had said that prior to being appointed Divisional Commander, he was the commanding officer of the TSU and he was therefore familiar with its operations. Noting that he was familiar with the arms and ammunition carried by that unit, Hicken said that as far as he knew ranks did not carry copper coated ammunition and never had cartridges with copper coated pellets.
Independent pathologist Professor Hubert Daisley, a Trinidadian expert, had been asked to observe the post-mortem examinations which were conducted by Government Pathologist Dr Nehaul Singh. He had found that the three slain Lindeners were all shot through the heart with what appeared to be bronze capped rounds. “These were metal. They were capped with bronze looking caps, almost like gold but I think they were bronze. The core of these was of lead. These were not rubber by any chance, they were metal,” Daisley had stated at a press conference hosted subsequent to the completion of the autopsies.
‘Short tempered’
Williams asked Hicken whether he was aware of Brumell’s statement during his testimony that he was not in contact with him. Hicken refuted this claim. “I was in constant contact with Mr. Leroy Brumell, Commissioner of Police. I told him what transpired based on information coming to me,” he said.
“Do you know the Commissioner of Police said that you were removed from that station because you didn’t perform your duties?” Williams asked.
Hicken responded in the negative.
“I’m not aware that the commissioner said that… I know I performed my duties as the commander,” he added.
“Did you know that the Commissioner of Police had no problem transferring you because he said that you were short tempered and because of that short temper you passed the direction to shoot?” Williams asked.
“I don’t know what you mean by short tempered. I know I am short… I don’t have the authority to pass an order to shoot,” Hicken answered.
In his main testimony during which he was led by Hugh, Hicken said protestors were threatening to burn down the Mackenzie-Wismar Bridge and the town, if police moved them.
He recalled that when he left the bridge, after engaging with leaders some time after 11.05 am, there were about 900 protestors on the bridge. When he returned there at around 5.05 pm, he noted, the number of protestors had grown as had the number of tents erected and the amount of debris on the bridge. He said it appeared that people were also cooking there at that time.
Hicken, who pointed out that he was not armed himself, stated that persons were shouting that they were not paying any increase in electricity tariffs and if the police attempted to stop them they would burn the bridge, then the town.
He noted that among the conditions for permission being granted for the protest march was that those participating must obey all instructions/orders given by the police. And he said while at the bridge, he pleaded with trade unionist Lincoln Lewis and Working Peoples Alliance’s member David Hinds to get the bridge cleared and they both assured him that that would be done by nightfall. He added that he subsequently spoke with Brumell and following instructions he returned to the Mackenzie Police Station. Later, he said, Brumell instructed him “to let the unit [TSU] clear the bridge.”
As a result, he contacted Assistant Superintendent Patrick Todd, the officer-in-charge of the unit, and he was told of the instruction from the Commissioner.
The TSU unit was deployed to the bridge some time between 6 pm and 6:30 pm. Afterward, he said he kept in contact with Todd from the Mackenzie Police Station via phone and when the unit left the police station, where it was based upon arrival in the mining town earlier that morning, he kept reporting to the commissioner.
Todd, according to Brumell, was the officer who gave the order to fire.
‘Minimum force’
Williams, during his examination, suggested that after speaking to the leaders of the protest during the day and having his requests to clear the bridge being met with refusals, Hicken’s duty should have been to use minimum force to clear the bridge. “The commander was required to act since 11.10 am, when he said that there were chants and threats to burn down the bridge. He had the duty to act then and there… if it were true, when he went back there at 5 something, there woulda been no bridge,” the lawyer said.
But Hicken reminded that his ranks were unequipped for such a procedure. “In my evidence, I thought I said that the protestors said that if the police try to stop them, then they would burn the bridge. In that case, I had to report to my superior, Mr Leroy Brumell, Commissioner of Police. I could not act independently. What I did was my responsibility to send the information where it is supposed to go, which is to the head of the Guyana Police Force,” he explained.
Subsequently, Williams questioned whether he needed to get the commissioner’s approval for every decision. “When you deal with the interior and all these places and you are the commander of a division, you have to go to the commissioner for everything?” he asked. This comment saw the intervention of Hugh, who asked that Williams act in a more “civil” manner and not insult the witness, who was called at the request of the commission.
“He did not say that. He said when it comes to the TSU, he does not have the authority to give orders,” Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry, former Chief Justice of Jamaica Lensley Wolfe added, which prompted Williams to move on.
Asked about the time he became aware of any sort of shooting, Hicken said that around 7:30 pm on July 18 he was only told that persons were injured. “I hadn’t had any information that someone was shot and killed. In fact, I got information that someone was allegedly injured and I went to the Mackenzie Hospital and the nurse say, ‘no police can come in here,’” he recalled. Around 10 pm, he added, he received further information that someone had been shot but up to that time, he was unaware that it had been a fatal injury. He pointed out that it was at 6 am on July 19 that he learnt persons were killed.
Williams further quizzed him about whether he had seen any of the bodies, but Hicken told him that he was relieved of his duties and that question would have to be put to the current commander.
Williams also confronted Hicken over claims by APNU MP Desmond Trotman that he had ordered the police vehicle be driven on to the bridge to disperse the protestors. “I am putting it to you that he [Trotman] heard you telling your ranks to load their firearms and take your vehicle and drive it into the people on the bridge. I’m putting that to you… and as the driver approached the crowd they didn’t move and he swerved,” Williams said directly to Hicken. “With all due respect counsel, I don’t know what you are talking about… Counsel that didn’t happen,” Hicken said, while noting that he did not know Trotman, who was called to the hearing.
“I object to that suggestion. He is asking Mr Hicken to speculate about what the driver was thinking at the time. Mr Williams is suggesting that Mr Hicken knew what the driver was thinking,” Hugh added.
Williams told Hicken that Trotman then had an exchange with him, inquiring about his intention for the action but Hicken said he had no recollection of the conversation. “I don’t know Mr. Trotman. I spoke to many people,” he said, adding that he never gave the directions he was accused of giving to any rank.
At the beginning of yesterday’s hearing, Sergeant Aubrey Bowman, the officer-in-charge of issuing and collecting arms and ammunition issued at TSU, was led in evidence by legal counsel for the commission Ganesh Hira.
Bowman explained that it is the officer-in-charge who gives instructions for the issuing of arms and ammunition and what is given is documented in the Unit Book. And he recalled that on July 18 he did issue arms and ammunition to ranks and made the relevant entries in the book. Among the weapons issued to those ranks, based on his testimony, were shotguns, FN rifles and tear smoke grenades.
He was shown a book, which he confirmed was the book and he then went through the entries step by step, including the name and regulation number of the ranks and the time of the issuance. Reference was made to some of the contents that were highlighted in the book, but according to Bowman they were not made by him. He said the book was handed over to the investigators and the names highlighted were those who were deployed to Linden.
Bowman said that according to the record, which was not made by him, the weapons were returned on July 22. During questioning by Hugh, he said that all the ranks were issued with helmets but only a few were recorded. No riot shields were issued, he added.
