Dear Editor,
The government’s gun amnesty policy is well on its way. Whether it yields the anticipated results is left to be seen. Citizens have, thus far, responded and both firearms and ammunition have been handed over to the police under this policy.
Unfortunately, the government, presumably, through the instrumentality of the Ministry of Public Security, has failed to promulgate and make public, the extent and parameters of this policy. This is a grave omission which must be rectified with every convenient speed. All that the nation has been fed with regarding this policy, are the sporadic oral utterances of Minister Khemraj Ramjattan. As far as I am aware, there is no document which explains the policy, more particularly, informing of the nature, boundaries and limits, if any, of this policy. Certainly, such a document, if extant, has not been made public. Such a document must be widely published so that both the citizens and their legal advisers are given an opportunity to comprehensively and maturely peruse the terms, conditions, nature, and extent of this amnesty so as to appreciate the perils, if any, to which one is exposed when one submits to it.
There is, I believe a general and broad understanding that if a person takes in to the police, a gun and/or ammunition for which they have no valid licence as are required under the Firearms Act, that person will not be charged for any offences under the Firearms Act, for example, being in possession of a firearm and/or ammunition without the requisite licence. However, assuming that the firearm is linked, either by ballistics or circumstantially or otherwise to some other crime, for example, a murder, an attempted murder, a manslaughter or a burglary, would the amnesty extend to those offences, thereby creating a protective cloak of immunity from prosecution in relation to those offences as well? No one is sure, except, perhaps, Mr Ramjattan, whom I presume is the author of the policy. But clearly, Mr Ramjattan cannot be the exclusive preserve of this information. The citizenry who are being asked to expose their life and liberty under this policy must be so informed. The state cannot lawfully jeopardize the life, liberty and fundamental freedoms of the citizenry in such a heedless and reckless manner. The Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions ought to be concerned about the vagueness and vagaries which afflict this policy.
Guyana is not the first country to have implemented such a policy. All the goodly Minister needs to do is to look at the legal frameworks which have been established in other jurisdictions where such a policy was executed. As a lawyer, Mr Ramjattan must be aware of the legal implications of implementing such policy in the vacuous manner in which he has done it. Moreover, this is a government of many lawyers and it is inconceivable how such a grave but rudimentary error could have escaped them all. On frequent occasions, I have heard lawyers, who hold no known qualifications other than their legal training, and who occupy high positions in this government, announcing publicly that the government will seek legal advice on various matters regarding which the legal positions are both trite and settled. I often wonder what qualified them to land such important positions in the first place, if it were not their legal training since they, apparently, still need legal advice on the most elementary legal issues. Some of these lawyers spent their entire professional life purporting to give legal advice for reward on much more complex issues. Now they need legal advice on the simplest of issues.
Before I close, I want to take this opportunity to endorse the sentiments expressed by former president, Comrade Donald Ramotar, that the PNC should take advantage of this amnesty and hand over to the police, the guns which they may still have in their possession received by them from the Guyana Defence Force in the late ʼ70s. One would readily recall the oral testimony and documentary evidence which were presented to the Walter Rodney Commissioner of Inquiry by the Guyana Defence Force to the effect that over 150 guns, including high powered rifles, were delivered by the Guyana Defence Force to a named leading activist, at the time, of the PNC. This evidence was neither shaken nor contradicted by cross-examination. Neither was evidence led to rebut it.
It is now common knowledge that some of these guns were recovered by the police from the hands of notorious bandits. However, some are still missing. An inspiring example can be set if the PNC would deliver some of these weapons to the police under this amnesty policy. Indeed, Mr Ramjattan will certainly win national adulation if he is to call upon them publicly to do so.
Yours faithfully,
Anil Nandlall
