.jpg)
THOSE in various professions, and members of the public in general who may be closely following the work of the Commission of Inquiry into incidents and developments during what came to be known as the “Linden crisis” would undoubtedly be looking forward to the resumption of hearings when the five-member Commission holds their next sitting on October 15 after a week’s recess.
They could hardly have missed the special interest focus by sections of privately-owned media and lawyers who are also linked with the political opposition, on selected reportage of telephone conversations between Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee and Senior Superintendent Clifton Hicken on July 18, the day when three Lindeners were killed during a protest demonstration.
The special interest by the political opposition and the partisan reporting on the Rohee-Hicken conversations would hardly have been a surprise, since such detractors of the Home Affairs Minister and Senior Superintendent Hicken appeared to have already arrived at accusatory conclusions. Hence, they care not about disclosures from official records that those telephone calls had occurred about TWO HOURS AFTER the shooting deaths of the trio.
It is to be assumed that the distinguished Commissioners may also be preparing to invite the Home Affairs Minister, at their convenience, when hearings resume, considering the very serious claims made by opposition parliamentarians who are also involved as attorneys for family members of the deceased trio, that Rohee had given “instructions” to Hicken about what to do on that July 18 day of the tragedy.
Perhaps we should also be prepared for opposition parliamentarians, who are among the lawyers, as well as those involved in organising the “protest march” (against a proposed hike in electricity tariff) being invited by the Commission. The police have already explained conditionalities in granting permission for the march.
After all, Lindeners and wider segments of the Guyanese population, including sections of the media engaged in reporting on the Inquiry, would be familiar with utterances of well known political elements, some of which have been boastfully reported, about their own respective roles prior to, and during, the explosion of the so-called “Linden crisis”.
The negotiated and unanimously approved terms of reference for the Inquiry do not, in our humble judgment, preclude the Commissioners from summoning ANYONE they consider relevant to having a better understanding of the context of related circumstances during the “Linden crisis” when three Guyanese citizens were shot to death, and political turmoil with wide-scale destruction by arson of private and state-owned properties occurred.
They could hardly have missed the special interest focus by sections of privately-owned media and lawyers who are also linked with the political opposition, on selected reportage of telephone conversations between Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee and Senior Superintendent Clifton Hicken on July 18, the day when three Lindeners were killed during a protest demonstration.
The special interest by the political opposition and the partisan reporting on the Rohee-Hicken conversations would hardly have been a surprise, since such detractors of the Home Affairs Minister and Senior Superintendent Hicken appeared to have already arrived at accusatory conclusions. Hence, they care not about disclosures from official records that those telephone calls had occurred about TWO HOURS AFTER the shooting deaths of the trio.
It is to be assumed that the distinguished Commissioners may also be preparing to invite the Home Affairs Minister, at their convenience, when hearings resume, considering the very serious claims made by opposition parliamentarians who are also involved as attorneys for family members of the deceased trio, that Rohee had given “instructions” to Hicken about what to do on that July 18 day of the tragedy.
Perhaps we should also be prepared for opposition parliamentarians, who are among the lawyers, as well as those involved in organising the “protest march” (against a proposed hike in electricity tariff) being invited by the Commission. The police have already explained conditionalities in granting permission for the march.
After all, Lindeners and wider segments of the Guyanese population, including sections of the media engaged in reporting on the Inquiry, would be familiar with utterances of well known political elements, some of which have been boastfully reported, about their own respective roles prior to, and during, the explosion of the so-called “Linden crisis”.
The negotiated and unanimously approved terms of reference for the Inquiry do not, in our humble judgment, preclude the Commissioners from summoning ANYONE they consider relevant to having a better understanding of the context of related circumstances during the “Linden crisis” when three Guyanese citizens were shot to death, and political turmoil with wide-scale destruction by arson of private and state-owned properties occurred.
