ASSUMING the role of the Appeal Court judge, last century’s preeminent black advocate, Mr. Eusi Kwayana has rummaged through the 2012 Linden Commission of Inquiry report and has found many faults. He has found the legal eagles lacking in their judgment in a letter to SN of April 1st, 2013 titled “in the Linden killings, police used the Criminal Offences Act to deal with the breaches of the Public Order Act and the Commissioners saw nothing wrong with that”. It was a long letter.

To make up, he has compensatory relief in mind. What’s his bottom line? Free money from Guyana’s cash-strapped taxpayers! He spices up his appeal by invoking the names of “economists like (Adam) Smith, Ricardo and Karl Marx, who all contributed to the general body of Labour theories of value.” Harnessing their reputations, he goes after the COI. He reminds us that “in their compensation awards, the Commissioners seemed to be applying a “wages” theory of the value human life. The lower the wages, the cheaper is the life of a human….”
Mr. Kwayana knows too well that slaves were auctioned off like cattle long ago. The higher the slave value, the higher the price increases for the slave owner! Has Mr. Kwayana become a “modern” day one of those, seeking higher prices for loss of “stock”? How long will Lindeners allow themselves to be constantly pre judged by yesterday’s price system, most importantly by one who is their supposed prominent and respected champion, which impacts all their lives? If anyone other than Mr. Kwayana had made this analogy, he would have been burnt alive. Mr. Kwayana must jump off the political stage before he is pulled. The albatross of the 1960s Wismar massacre of Indians and now the 2012 Linden shootings are best removed in atonement, not incitement. Reparations for Linden 2012 awaken the same for the 1964 Wismar massacre etc. Such comparisons have no end to grief, and will only continue unless we divest our burdens into a federalist system of government where we thrive unhindered by resolving our own problems.
The rehashing by Mr. Kwayana of the COI report has been very clear in the Commissioner’s minds, and is well understood by the public that ‘the Linden Organisers planned the protest not as an act outside (NB) the Law, but with permission requested and granted under the Public Order Act. (POA).” Mr. Kwayana insists “that is where any judgment of intent must begin. Any neglect of the conditions imposed by the police would be a breach of the POA.” But suddenly Mr. Kwayana asserts that “if a group of persons decided to block the bridge to ensure attention that would be an act of civil disobedience. Modern political culture allows (sic) creative, on-the-spot forms of freedom of expression that are non-violent.” Must it not be in compliance without breaking the law?
Is Mr. Kwayana more “absent” than he cares to admit? The organisers and Linden protesters cannot be both legally confirming to their POA obligations and legalities and simultaneously be found acting jointly as a mob spontaneously and unilaterally deciding to block a bridge (1) to ensure attention and (2) as an act of civil disobedience because they found it “creative”! And yet Mr. Kwayana wants us to believe they themselves would not have committed any breach of their obligations by all the ensuing violence.
Mr. Kwayana has proudly admitted operating outside, and he revels breaking the law. He sanctifies breaking the POA “permission” agreement and switching to something “creative”. Even if the switch occurred and the police anticipated it did, they have the legal responsibility and obligation to also recalibrate in preparation? Flying debris, rocks, bottles and setting buildings afire are in no way acts of civil disobedience. It’s still the responsibility of the police to enforce all the laws of Guyana, regardless of race and colour. But it would seem that respect for law and order goes against Mr. Kwayana’s grain. His admission is open, bold and a badge of honour. He feels no guilt because it allowed him for many years to champion a black agenda ‘as a person who, with hundreds of others, took part in illegal marches when permission was not available’. Yet he still insists on quoting law which he believes others are also entitled to selectively break as he sees fit. Mr. Kwayana believes strongly in shared governance.