Trying to put to rest questions about his role in the July 18 Linden protestor shootings, Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee yesterday denied any responsibility for the deaths of three protestors, while saying efforts to link him to the events were politically-motivated.
At a commission of inquiry hearing at the Supreme Court Law Library, which was packed to capacity, Rohee said he gave no instructions to police ranks to open fire at Linden, despite accusations that have galvanised calls for his sacking.
“With respect to the accusations, I believe there are a series of events that led up to the shooting to death of the three Lindeners which I have absolutely nothing to do with and therefore I believe that the accusation is wrongly-placed… The efforts of linking me to the shooting to death, I think, [are] politically-motivated,” he said when asked about the accusations he has faced by the commission’s legal counsel Ganesh Hira.
The commission is inquiring into the shooting to death of Allan Lewis, Ron Somerset and Shemroy Bouyea, and the wounding of others. It is also tasked with determining what instructions, if any, Rohee gave to members of the Guyana Police Force on the ground immediately before, during and immediately after the events of July 18.
“You have been accused in the public domain, particularly in the media and also in parliament, of being responsible for the shooting to death of three Lindeners and the injury to several others on the 18th July, 2012 in the vicinity of the Mackenzie-Wismar Bridge,” commission attorney Hira said to Rohee before being interrupted by Com-missioner KD Knight, who asked whether the accusation relates to personal or ministerial responsibilities. Hira told the commissioner that it is Rohee’s ministerial responsibilities but said he thought the possibility exists of it being of a personal nature as well.
Rohee, who explained that he derives his ministerial responsibilities from the Police Act and other statutes and, above all else, emphasised his non-involvement and also told the commission, that there is a current campaign of vilification against him.
Audio
COI Hearings 31/10/12
Asked by Hira what he meant by the term “campaign of vilification,” the minister stated, “the word vilification derives from villain. I have been made out to be the villain in this exercise. I have been linked directly to the shooting of these three Lindeners by virtue of allegations made to the effect that phone calls were made by me prior to the shooting and that those phone calls had to do allegedly with instructions to shoot and it was from there the campaign flow[ed].”
Throughout his testimony all eyes were on the minister, who was dressed in a blue and a white striped shirt, as he moved to the witness box. Among those in the attendance were the ministers Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, Dr Jennifer Westford, Dr Bheri Ramsaran, Robert Persaud and Irfaan Ali along with other government operatives, in addition to members of the opposition.
In addition, before Rohee took to the stand several persons linked to the government, including parliamentarian Manzoor Nadir, picked up placards outside of the building and protested against the minister being called to testify. The protestors, most of who were at the inquiry before the minister started testifying, said it was APNU and the AFC who should be made to explain their role in the July 18 deaths.
Peace and order
Rohee recalled that on the evening of July 17, he met with acting Commissioner of Police Leroy Brumell, then E&F Division Commander Clifton Hicken and Crime Chief Seelall Persaud, in the boardroom of his office, where he was briefed by Brumell. He said that the Police Commissioner inform-ed him about developments in Linden and that he had taken a decision to dispatch a half unit of the Tactical Services Unit to the mining town. According to the Minister, he indicated to Brumell that he would rely on him to ensure that peace and order is maintained while the unit was at Linden.
However, Rohee said, on July 18, between 8pm and 9pm, he received information that persons were shot and killed. He called Brumell to find out exactly what was happening, but said he was not in a position to inform him whether persons were indeed shot at that time. The minister said he was required to brief the President, the Prime Minister, the Head of the Presidential Secretariat and his Cabinet colleagues and he provided them with the little information he had. He pointed out that subsequent to that, he was asked by these persons for constant updates.
Videos
COI hearings 31/10/12
He noted that he made continuous attempts to contact Brumell via phone but these efforts proved futile, resulting in his calling Hicken. He stated that this was sometime after 8pm.
Commissioner Dana Seetahal inquired what he was told by Hicken. “He could not tell me exactly how many persons were killed, information that he had was very sketchy but I think he tried his best to provide me with as much information as he could at the time… in respect to what was happening on the bridge, how much people were on the bridge, the actions they took to disperse the crowd from the bridge, that buildings were burning, that explosions were heard, that the police came under attack, that tear gas was used and that the [Standard Operating Procedures], with respect to crowd dispersal, was followed by the unit commander,” Rohee answered.
Under cross examination by attorney Nigel Hughes, who is representing the interest of the families of the three dead men, Rohee said he had two mobile phones but could only recall the number of one. However, he later submitted the number for the second instrument. Asked if he had other direct lines, the minister responded in the negative and provided the commission with a landline number for his secretary. Asked whether he used the mobile phone of which he provided the first number for to contact Brumell on July 18, Rohee said he used that phone all the time and could not recall if he received regular updates from Brumell. Asked if he spoke to Crime Chief Persaud on July 18, he stated that he could not recall this as well. “Myself and Crime Chief speak very often on various issues, so I wouldn’t recall what it was about,” Rohee stated, after phone records shown to him proved that he had spoken to Persaud at 5:45pm.
One call
The records showed that he had placed a single call to Brumell at 5:28pm while he called Hicken at 9:04pm and 9:06pm, despite statements that he had made several efforts to call the Police Commissioner before resorting to Hicken. “You called the commissioner once at 17:28hrs and never tried to call him again when you spoke to Hicken at 9:04,” Hughes said. Rohee told him that was correct.
Asked if he tried to contact Brumell on any other phone, the minister explained that he would usually call his secretary from his cell and ask her to establish contact with persons, who would then contact him. After taking a second look at the phone records, Rohee found that he placed no call to his secretary.
“That call you had with Hicken at 9:06 was relatively long for you to have on a cell phone. That was the longest call you had between 9am and 9pm… 6 minutes and five seconds,” Hughes said. He was told by the witness that he was receiving more detailed information about what was happening on the ground at Linden. “That people were blocking the bridge, trucks were burnt, buildings on fire, people pelting objects at police… information of that sort,” he added.
Hughes then pointed out that the call to Brumell actually lasted for only one second and asked the minister what was said within that short time. Rohee said the call was brief because Brumell “didn’t have much to offer”. “On the records of your cell calls made that evening, the time you spoke to the commissioner is one second, so I’m suggesting that you never meant to speak to the commissioner, you went directly to Hicken, with whom you had a relationship, to get information,” Hughes suggested. Rohee, however, disagreed with this.
Hughes asked the witness to explain why he spoke to Hicken on five occasions after 9pm on July 18 and had not spoken to Brumell for more than one second. “It was quite possible I may have called the Crime Chief to get in touch with the commissioner so he could call me or I wasn’t getting in touch with the commissioner, so I called Hicken. The information that was coming from Hicken was not as fulsome as I wanted. The first call he couldn’t tell me how many persons had died,” he stated.
Commissioner Knight interjected at this point and stated that he did not see where the line of questioning was leading the commission. He added that he wanted to get to the “nitty-gritty” and see the matter advance.
Deadly force
When asked by Hughes if he had asked the Commissioner of Police who had authorized the use of deadly force, Rohee said when he spoke to Brumell neither of them was certain if persons had died. “Neither he [n]or I were clear that people had died… were not clear people were injured or had died. Sometime after the conversation with Hicken, I became aware that there were fatalities,” he said.
Rohee noted that it was after a phone call from members of the Community Policing Group that he learnt people were injured and had to be hospitalised. He subsequently said that he did not believe he ever inquired into who authorised the use of deadly force.
Further pressed by Hughes as to whether he made a specific inquiry into this aspect, Rohee said that was probably done on July 19. “The commissioner did not reply. I was told he was preparing a report,” Rohee said, adding that to date, he has received no report about who authorised the use of deadly force. However, he said he did get an interim report a few days subsequent to July 18 but could not recall who was said to have authorised the use of deadly force in that report.
Under further questioning by Hughes, Rohee said that Brumell did not indicate that protestors were shot when they spoke between 7pm and 7:30pm. However, the attorney presented him with what he had said in his statement: “I recall sometime around 7, the commissioner informed me that persons were shot.” The minister then said that he inquired from Brumell whether people were killed and he was told that people were shot. “He (Brumell) couldn’t say if they were killed,” he added. Rohee said he was not familiar with the type of ammunition used by the police force prior to July 18.
The minister also said that although there were a series of protests and about 16 public meetings by residents opposing the hike in electricity rates, the meeting he held with the Brumell, Persaud and Hicken on July 17 was the first. “Events in Linden had continuously escalated?” Hughes asked, before receiving an affirmative answer. “So at that meeting on 17th, were you concerned about the possibility that the police might intentionally, or by error, use lethal force the following day?” Hughes further asked and was told that the possibility existed. Asked if he had extracted anything from the meeting that lethal force would not be used, Rohee responded in the negative.
“Did anyone give you the impression that live rounds will not be used?” Hughes asked the witness, who said that that issue did not arise. He said he did not inquire whether the water cannon would be taken to Linden nor did he inquire about the level of equipment ranks deployed would arm themselves with. “Did you inquire about any plans they made in relation to crowd control?” Hughes asked. “No, nothing was volunteered to me,” Rohee said, further adding that he could not recall whether there were any discussions during the July 17 meeting of the potential use of deadly force.
According to him, Brumell briefed him and put various scenarios to him, none of which addressed the possibility of the use of lethal weapons, the use of water cannon, rubber bullets, or riot shields. He said he could not recall whether he was given assurance that lethal force will not be used. After Hughes suggested that lethal force was discussed, Rohee said “it might have come up in the debriefing but I can’t recall it coming up”.
Accusations
The Minister said that by July 19, it became apparent that accusations were made that he was directly involved and he subsequently did an interview with the Government Information Agency (GINA), which was headlined ‘Rohee’s conscience is clear.’ “The opposition leader had already raised it, so I was aware of accusations,” he said, admitting that during interview, he was going to remove himself from the events of July 18 because “I had nothing to with it.”
Rohee said he did not recall saying during the interview that he asked the police “about the possibility of any serious confrontation taking place” but noted that it could have been said. Hughes also suggested that the minister said “we looked at different scenarios and I was given assurances on several occasions that live rounds won’t be used” but Rohee said he could not recall.
Hughes told Knight he was looking at Rohee’s credibility because his recollection was inaccurate and he was “distancing and protecting himself.” According to Hughes, the extractions from the taped interview contradict the impression given by the minister. The July 22 interview was shown to the commissioners.
“I asked for a full briefing of the situation because I wanted to have a feel of what was happening on the ground, so I met with the commissioner, the deputy commissioner, the then commander, they came to the ministry… I asked them about the possibility of any confrontation… I was given assurance on several occasions that live rounds will not be used by the police in deterring the protestors or the actions of the protestors. I know that live rounds are not supposed to be used. We may use tear gas, we may use rubber pellets, we may use water cannon, some deterrent [but] never live rounds, that’s a deadly response,” Rohee said in the clip taken from the interview.
Meanwhile, under questioning by APNU attorney Basil Williams, Rohee said that the proposal for a five day protest by the people of Linden did not alarm him or the Cabinet. “You had visions of the town shutting down for five days?” Williams asked the witness, who said “I am not a visionary.” “But I am asking you if it would not be within your contemplation that a five-day protest could potentially lead to a shutdown of the town?” Williams put to Rohee who then stated that he had information that “people were actually going around telling people to shutdown.”
Rohee added that he directed Brumell to take all necessary steps to maintain law and order but did not give any specific instructions.
Deeming Assistant Superintendent Patrick Todd a junior rank, Williams asked Rohee why Todd was allowed to pass an order to shoot. “The unit commander must be in touch with the divisional commander,” Rohee responded. When asked if Todd should have sought permission from a higher rank before giving instructions to shoot, Rohee said, “I can’t comment on that; I believe that is something internal with the force.” Later, when asked if he should have input in big operational matters, Rohee said, “I don’t believe that.”
Rohee said he attended a meeting at Office of the President on July 19 with the government delegation led by President Donald Ramotar. Also there were Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon, the opposition leader David Granger, Speaker of the House Raphael Trotman, AFC members Nigel Hughes, Gerhard Ramsaroop, Khemraj Ramjattan as well as APNU MP and former police commissioner Winston Felix. He said that the opposition requested that Hicken be removed from his post as E&F Division Commander with immediate effect and Hicken’s replacement was identified as Gavin Primo.
Rohee had earlier told the commission that there had been discussions about changing the standard operation procedures sometime before the acquisition of the water cannon. “Utmost in mind was to modernize the force and ensure they had tools they had requested,” Rohee said, when asked whether the acquisition of the water canon was to be in compliance with UN standards. He said it might have been but he was not sure.
