-police force attorney
Guyana Police Force attorney Peter Hugh yesterday told members of the commission inquiring into the July 18 shootings at Linden that the actions of the police on that day are covered by the Criminal Law Offences Act and as a result they are protected from civil or criminal prosecution.
Hugh, reading the act, stated, “if any person is to unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assemble together, or twelve or more of them continue together, and do not disperse themselves … 15 minutes after the proclamation is made, it shall be the duty of every justice and of all persons required by him to assist, to cause those persons to be apprehended and taken before a Magistrate to be dealt with according to law and if any person of those assembled are killed, hurt or injured in their apprehension of dispersion, every person ordering to be apprehended or dispersed and every person executing those orders shall be free, discharged and indemnified of, from and against all proceedings, whether civil or criminal in respect thereon”.
According to Hugh, protestors on July 18 unlawfully assembled on the Wismar/Mackenzie Bridge when they occupied, blocked and took possession of the roadway. He stated that the members of the Guyana Police Force were under a duty and had an obligation to clear that bridge and based upon the conditions at the time, they were covered by the act.
The police attorney further stated that the use of a shotgun is considered lethal force. He contended that it was used in a manner to minimize injury and in complete accordance with the force’s standard operating procedure.
He further stated that the organizers and the leaders of the procession must bear some responsibility for the events that took place on the bridge, noting that evidence has proven that leaders encouraged the protestors to stay on the bridge. “They must have known this would have breached the requirements of the permission granted and this was an unlawful act… from the time you do an illegal act, is it not foreseeable that the police will get involved. In not asking their supporters to remove from the bridge, they were well aware of the consequences of their actions. I cannot say who … the individual perpetrators of violence were but had the leaders followed permission granted, then this entire exercise wont have been necessary, there would have been no incident with the Guyana Police Force,” Hugh concluded.
Audio
COI Hearing 2/11/12
Commissioner KD Knight asked the lawyer if it would have been possible for the persons injured to have been shot by anyone other than the police and was told that this may be a possibility.
“May be possible to find many people armed that day,” Hugh stated.
Inconsistencies
Attorney Steve Massiah, who made representation for the Fire Service and the Joint Services, told the commission that there had been many inconsistencies coming from the witnesses about the time the police had began discharging rounds.
According to him, this would affect the aspect of the terms of reference which requires the commission to inquire what, if any, general or specific instructions were given by the Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee to members of the Guyana Police Force to maintain law and order in Linden immediately before, during and immediately after the events of July 18.
He expressed concern over the aspect and asked the commissioners to consider the witnesses’ interpretation of the word “immediate”.
Attorney Latchmi Rahamat, who appeared for those whose property was damaged by fire at Linden, said that the organizers of the protest who mobilized the residents are to blame for the destruction and damage caused to her clients’ properties.
“They owed that duty to those protestors and other residents of Linden. They had the obligation to the permit to ask their followers to move from the bridge. It is the failure to take leadership of the people that resulted in the situation escalating to what it was,” Rahamat posited.
She further told commissioners that based on their recommendations, her clients are prepared to go to the civil court to claim compensation if her submission is favoured.
Demanding keys
Earlier on, PPP Member Compton Fraser, who is the caretaker of the Linmine Secretariat Building, which was set alight on July 18, said that he was informed of the fire by security personnel, Mark Alexander.
He stated that during the call, he was told that a big crowd was demanding keys to the gate to get inside and that the guard had no other alternative but to give them the keys. He stated that he called Alexander shortly after again to inform him that the protestors were in the compound and had broken the lock to the building to get it.
“He said they were lighting fire in the building because door was wide open and from where he was standing he could’ve seen… He said he had to run away because he was afraid,” the witness stated.
Around 2 am on the 19th, Fraser said he became so worried about the building that he drove to the office and found that the gate was wide open and a big security light in front of building was still on. “I shone my light in the building because the door was still open and everything was burn up. I was hesitant to go in but after recognizing no one was around I walked in the building and looked around. First thing I observed was the computer, it was destroyed, the desk it was on was completely burnt. Had some chairs like they pile them up then set them afire, walls were scorched, telephones were burnt. Louver windows were all broken,” he recalled.
He told the commission that the registered owner of building is the PPP/C and that a copy of transport would be provided. He pointed out that the document of the estimated loss was being prepared.
