Any mature Guyanese, in anticipation of the Commission of Inquiry findings into

the Linden protest, would  have concluded that whatever findings are made, and where the chips must fall, let it be.
Responsibilities must be fairly accepted, with a serious commitment to better future judgment, since what occurred at Linden, must not  be repeated, elsewhere in Guyana.
However, if one were to judge from the many statements emanating from the expected quarters, this is not going to be. In fact, true to form, objections to aspects of the Linden Commission of Inquiry, have been forthcoming from  especially the political opposition group APNU and, its sister ally, the AFC.  So far, both groups have criticised the level of compensation awarded to the families of the  deceased, and the injured; with Linden’s Regional Chairman Sharma Solomon indicating that the region will be pursuing “legal direction in terms of legal advice and  legal action  if that is required”. Add to this, there is the great disappointment suffered by the opposition parties,   that Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, has been fully exonerated by the Commission’s findings.
That said, one must comment on Solomon’s view that “he is not to be blamed for the July 18, 2012 confrontation between protestors and police that resulted in the shootings that claimed the lives of three Lindeners…two dozen others injured.”
One may refer to  the CoI findings, among which stated, that the leaders of the Linden protest, inclusive of Aubrey Norton, Vanessa Kissoon and Desmond Trotman, ought to have been able to advise the protestors that they were in breach of the law, and should have encouraged them to  disperse. It is a fair comment, made by the commission. As leaders, they share an equal responsibility for the Linden tragedy.
The reality of leadership, is that full responsibilities for whatever business, event, or eventuality that may be done, accrue or result, is the full charge  of  whoever accepts the challenge of leading. This point is  definitely missing from the bag of reasonableness  that Solomon  should  now be carrying .
As Regional Chairman, he is the chief spokesperson for his region. And this was manifestly underlined, from the inception of the announcement that Linden’s citizens  would  have to pay increases on their electricity bill. Sharma, not only articulated his region’s response, but became its  leading spokesperson, and had been pivotal  in  the steps that led up to the protest, since he was, and still is, of the  serious conclusion that the protest was for a just cause, and that the citizens were exercising their constitutional right. And  even now, he is again  leading and offering guide  to  the chorus of objections to  the issue of compensation.
One of the critical  aspects of leadership, such as what Solomon and his co-leaders undertook  with  the Linden protest, is that it carried the  enormous moral obligation of ensuring that events did not degenerate to the point that threatened the preservation of the peace, given the nature  of the  protest, and the anticipated presence of agent provocateurs. Such a scenario was always going to be  fraught with   possibilities of it escalating. Therefore, against such a background, the protest leaders ought to have been honest and forthright in their guidance  of those who followed them. For since it was  their self-ascribed right to lead, then it was  their obligation to accept full responsibilities for whatever may have  resulted.
This is the hallmark of  true leadership. Unfortunately, such was not exemplified at Linden, on that crucial day, resulting in the loss of lives, and injuries, coupled with a descent  into arson and mayhem.
Solomon’s tone is as defiant as can be. Such, as read from his pronouncements, carries the unmistakable conclusion, that there is no  self retrospection, much less an  apology for what occurred at the Linden bridge, and the ensuing mayhem.
Undoubtedly, his statement underlines a grave misunderstanding of the  responsibilities of leadership.