THE long-awaited Commission of Inquiry into the July 18th

shooting at the Mackenzie Bridge in Linden, where three persons lost their lives in protest over proposed electricity tariff hikes, commenced yesterday morning in the Law Library building  of the High Court before Commission Chairman Mr. Lensley Wolfe and Commissioners Dana Seetahal, K.D. Knight, Cecil Kennard and Claudette Singh.
Also present at the proceedings were secretary of the commission, Attorney-at-law Ronald Burch-Smith; Attorneys-at-law Ganesh Hira and Euclin Gomes; and Hugh Denbow, administrator to the commission.

Attorney–at-law Nigel Hughes appeared for the three deceased persons; Attorneys –at–law Hukumchand and Peter Hugh represented the Guyana Police Force; Attorneys–at–law Mohammed Khan and Dawn Holder-Alert represented the Guyana Bar Association; Attorney–at–law Vic Puran represented Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee; and Attorneys–at–law Basil Williams, Joseph Harmon and James Bond represented A Partnership for National Unity (APNU).

The proceedings commenced with the Chairman clearly outlining the ‘terms of reference’ to all, and the procedure the inquiry would adopt.

 Commissioner of Police (Ag) (COP) Leroy Brumell, DSM, was the first to take the stand. The top cop was first cross-examined by commissioner Mr. K.D. Knight, who began by asking him to state his name and designation, and when he started acting in the capacity of police commissioner.

Knight proceeded by asking the COP if he had been aware of the incident on July 18th, 2012 at the Mackenzie Bridge, and received an affirmative answer.

Knight then told the top cop that he was summoned to appear before the commission of inquiry (CoI), and that in doing so, he would be asked specific questions, answers for which he might provide if he so wished.

The top cop was made to understand that he must provide to the commission all items, plans, books, statements and any other information requested. He readily agreed to those terms.

He was then asked the name(s) of the unit(s) or squad(s) or personnel deployed to the Linden Bridge on the date in question, and their composition at the time.

The top cop said it was a half unit from the Tactical Services Unit (TSU) of the GPF, stationed at headquarters, Eve Leary in Georgetown, and having a composition of 1-17 which was deployed to join the Linden Anti–Crime Unit (LACU) of 1-13.

The COP was also asked to provide the names and ranks of all the police officers deployed to the bridge on the day in question, and to state who was in charge of the units at the bridge on the day in question. All the detailed answers were provided, as records were promised later in the day.

The head cop was also asked to provide the individual and collective level of training of the ranks of the unit that was deployed, and the COP promised to provide that information during the day.

He was also asked to provide details of the GPF’s procedure and preparation to deal with crowd control, and the top cop indicated that it would be provided in the training given to the police ranks on the general use of force.

Asked if he had a statement and was willing to provide it, or would stand in the witness box and answer questions with the aid of notes, the top cop opted to answer from the box with the aid of notes, as the commissioner continued.

He identified the leaders of the respective units in Assistant Superintendent P. Todd and Sergeant English of the TSU and LACU units, and the Commander of the E&F Division, Senior Superintendent Clifton Hickens, as being the person in overall command.

The names and ranks of all the relevant policemen were then submitted to the commissioner, as he continued questioning the top cop on the arrival of the unit in Linden.

Brumell was asked whether he had had specific instruction from the Minister of Home Affairs. He answered in the negative, and explained that before the unit had departed for Linden, he had briefed the Home Affairs Minister in his boardroom on what was going to be the policing arrangements in the following day’s activities in Linden.

NO INSTRUCTIONS FROM HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER
The top cop made it clear that he had received no instructions from the Home Affairs Minister, and that no such arrangement had been brokered at anytime in the past.
Asked about the use of force by the officer in command on the day in question, Brumell noted that he had spoken to the officer in command and had asked him to speak to the people, their leaders and others at the bridge, and to encourage them to remove from the bridge.

He noted that the commander had called him later in the evening, and had told him that a ‘few smoke and shots had been fired, and that there was one casualty and no clear report of any other injury.

The top cop said he learnt of the news through the media the following morning that three had died, and that there had been a shooting.

At that time, he stated, he acted in the best interest of the GPF, and used his judgment in removing the two top officers from their command and replacing them with a more mature senior officer.
He explained that he was not getting reports and communication to the officers and, as such, made the decision.

Asked about the directive to shoot, he noted that he received word that the command was given by ASP Todd to fire at the crowed in the vicinity of the bridge; and with that he acted to have them removed.

The commission then went on recess; and on resumption, APNU attorney Basil Williams questioned Commissioner Brumell, seeking the procedure in applying for permission for a protest march. Williams was given the detailed procedure: a written application to the area commander, who would inform the office of the Police Commissioner, and within 48 hours, permission would be granted.

Asked about the marches staged in Linden, and the volume of persons involved, the top cop stated that he could not give an accurate answer.

Questions followed, as the attorney sought to find out the level of preparation for the march on the day in question, and the top cop indicated that, based on intelligence received, he was informed that there would be armed persons in the crowd but that his unit was prepared.

Attorney for the three deceased persons, Nigel Hughes, in his set of questions to the top cop, sought detailed information regarding the Home Affairs Minister’s involvement in giving instructions to officers, and moreso, the commander of the units on the day in question.

The top cop responded by saying that the minister did not, in any way, give specific instructions; and that he was not aware of such.

Asked if it was normal for the minister to give direct instruction to an officer under his command, Brumell indicated that the minister would call the officers; and as regarding instructions being given, he has no knowledge of such.
Asked by commissioner Seetahal if there was a procedure in which the calls to the officers phones from the minister can be traced from the telephone company, the top cop told her yes, and that he was willing to provide if asked.

Hughes continued seeking details of the history of the commanding officer at the time of the incident, and whether the Home Affairs Minister had made a   specific call on the day in question, giving instructions to shoot.
The top cop denied.

The Commission of Inquiry requisitioned police video footage taken on the day in question, as well as the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and other crowd-control manuals.

The first day’s session was adjourned to be restarted at 09:30 hrs today at the same venue.