By Shauna Jemmott

GUYANA Fire Service station officer Andrew Holder has disclosed that during his investigations at the Georgetown Prison on March 3, a surviving Capital A inmate informed him that a “juk up” likely occurred in the prison before the fire started.

Holder made this startling revelation on Friday during his testimony before the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the Camp Street, Georgetown Prison riots earlier this year.

He was at the time being cross-examined by Attorney-at-law Eusi Anderson, who is representing the Joint Services at the CoI.

Holder related that he interviewed six inmates, whom he listed in alphabetical letters, instead of their real names (for security reasons) and the one who disclosed the information, said though he had overheard the talk, he did not see exactly what had transpired.

“Inmate B said he knew of no pugilistic activity nor any grievances among inmates. Inmate B said to me that one inmate was heard telling other inmates that he and his cousin “juk up” somebody,” the Fire officer told the Commission. He said he was told that the incident happened in Capital A.

According to the officer, the prisoner and others recounted that the fire started in the vicinity of a hole in the wall separating Capitals A and B, and named a single prisoner who was responsible for lighting the fire.

He said another inmate who was trapped in the fire, while confirming Inmate B’s story, said he had wet a cloth and put it around his face while the fire burned.

“Between me and you, is we own people inside the cell lit the fire,” the Officer said that other prisoner told him, and even told him the name of the inmate who started the blaze.

Yet another inmate told him matches or lighters were used to light the fires and although those were prohibited items, they formed prisoners’ “personal effects.”

CONSTANT CONFLICTS

Holder said when he asked that prisoner why inmates did not use the hole in the wall to exit the fiery Capital A into Capital B, the prisoner “reported a story to me of constant conflicts between the residents of Capital A and the residents of Capital B.”

He told the commission that the prisoner explained that the conflicts previously led to Capital B being evacuated at one time and prison officers saying that if they (Capital A inmates) venture across to Capital B block “they would be shot.”

The fire officer also related that the prisoner further stated that before the fire escalated, information circulated in Capital A that prison officers were in Capital B brandishing their weapons, which drove fear among the trapped prisoners.

He said after careful examination, interviewing and corroborating witness statements, with the data acquired, he concluded that “This fire occurred as a result of a prisoner or more than one prisoners setting fire to a mattress or mattresses”.

He also noted that while he and his ranks entered the building immediately after the fire was extinguished, they “personally did not experience those sensations” of the presence of tear gas.

Under cross-examination by attorney-at-law Glenn Hanoman of the Guyana Bar Association, Holder said he did not collect any physical items as he would in normal fire investigations, because other evidence suggested that the circumstances surrounding the fire were not questionable.

The fire officer said after taking the prisoners’ accounts, he and officers returned with shovels and upturned the debris searching for metal canisters but found none.

He said though he could not say the prisoners were lying about tear gas canisters being thrown into the dormitory, he personally did not experience a burning sensation.

He explained, however, that mattresses have a chemical called polyurethane, which gives off very toxic fumes and odours which, when exposed to fire, have varying effects on the human body.

He said while an inmate he dubbed ‘Inmate C’ gave him the name of the inmate who lit the fire, he would not rule out that those two inmates may have had a “beef” with each other.