None of the nominated prisoners have met the criteria to be pardoned this year, according to President David Granger.
“…You would have noticed I have not pardoned any persons this year. I didn’t pardon anyone at the time of independence because many of the persons who would normally be eligible for pardon are in fact convicted for trafficking in cocaine, not possession of a few grammes of marijuana, but trafficking and I’m not going to tolerate trafficking. I am not going to tolerate murder and I am not going to pardon anybody who’s got blood on their hands,” Granger said on the weekly televised programme The Public Interest, which was broadcast on Friday last.
Highlighting the criteria to select convicts for pardon, he noted that they would have been convicted for minor offences and that special emphasis was placed on women, especially mothers, since he did not like mothers being separated from their children.
He said while he would generally continue to pardon those who meet the criteria, so far none have done so. “I don’t pardon people for the sake of pardoning people, I pardon people to [give them] a second chance in life,” he added.
Granger explained that he believes compassion is an important quality for a head of state to possess. He indicated he has received letters from persons whom he had pardoned before and they expressed their gratitude for the second chance. “I am very happy from time to time to receive letters from persons who have been pardoned and who have been grateful. They felt that the pardon has turned their lives around,” he said, while adding that it brought him additional joy when one of the Sustain-able Livelihood and Entre-preneurial Development graduates turned out to be one of the youths he had pardoned and another was a student at the New Opportunity Corps.
Granger’s pardoning of convicts during his first year in office was criticised in light of the continuing high incidence of crime nationally. Although he had indicated that those pardoned were non-violent offenders, including youth and women who were convicted for possession of marijuana, the decision against releasing any information on the convicts attracted concerns, including from the Guyana Bar Association, which was critical of the “secretive manner” of the decision.
