MR Brynmor T.I. Pollard, S.C, a prominent member of the Guyana Bar apparently is seeking the removal of Home Affairs Minister Mr Clement Rohee. What can explain this public advocacy of a respected member of the legal profession so late after the Linden Commission has pronounced on the incident?

  He graciously informed us that: “I being conscious of the credentials of the commissioners…”  is yet unable to understand why  “regrettably, in my opinion, the commissioners being eminent Caribbean legal personalities, surprisingly avoided pronouncing on the important issue of ministerial responsibility arising out of the deaths which occurred as a result of the shooting of unarmed protesters by one or more members of the disciplined services at the scene of the tragedy”.
Mr Pollard is not the first to disagree with the eminent Linden commissioners, neither is he the last. But isn’t it  a fundamental  principle that punishment is imposed only when guilt is established? Expecting any minister to resign only in accordance with an opposition motion, individual opinion, any tradition, not even a principle of governance and certainly not a written law would imply that Minister Rohee was found guilty. Of  what and by whom?   Minister Rohee violated no law whatsoever, written or otherwise as the Linden Commission found in its deliberations.
Can any fortitude and advocacy by the distinguished Senior Counsel be understood as that which seeks to amplify and echo the  latest PNC calls to remove  Minister Rohee?
So regrettable too, is that no direct evidence was ever presented establishing direct police culpability in shooting the rioting Lindeners who were demanding the privileged retention of subsidised electricity, above all other Guyanese, contrary to what Mr Pollard states.   Superintendent Hicken specifically testified that he was in direct contact with Police HQ where overall responsibility and directions originate. The fact that the marchers actually violated the terms of the agreement by which they were granted police permission should have been ignored by the police because of … what Commonwealth precedent?
In any court of law, attorneys on opposite sides are seldom in agreement. All countries react to situations according to their own peculiar circumstances. While it is very unfortunate that Lindeners lost their lives, that was a gamble which their organisers made, to set them up as targets in premeditation.  As a senior counsel and very experienced lawyer, Mr Pollard knows law and order must be maintained and extreme situations engineer its own responses. Even if the law enforcement authorities had simply walked away and allowed the crowd to go on a rampage, that would have been a more serious dereliction of their sworn duties.
Look how Mr Nigel Hughes’s unethical and professional insolence came under severe reprimand by the Commission Chairman. Yet he got away with it.  Such unethical behaviour in the legal profession and more, other than Mr Hughes’s current conflicts of interest would have been grounds for disbarment in most Commonwealth countries. But Guyana is indeed different. Which Commonwealth country historically rigged elections so boldly as did the PNC, while its neighbours and the entire Commonwealth remained silent?
Nearly 1,000 Americans brought to Guyana by Rev Jim Jones and sheltered by the PNC committed mass suicide.  Prominent UF MP and physician Dr Makepeace Richmond wrote a letter to the press demanding Prime Minister Forbes Burnham resign after the mass suicide. But the UF MP also specifically wrote that he expects nothing to change in Guyana.  Can Guyana be more different?
Should current PNC shadow Home Minister and previous Commissioner of Police, Mr Winston Felix, formerly with direct responsibility for the police have resigned for his abject failure to stop  the 2002-2006  crime spree?
Look who’s poised to safeguard the milk and store should the PNC get elected to government! Can Guyana be more unique as it is different?
It is most regrettable that the learned senior counsel with his considerable legal prestige did not venture forward to champion democracy and similar principles, previously, as now embraced.  But any current fortitude and advocacy is now especially understandable  and more clear; it may probably echo the latest call of the PNC to remove the Home Affairs Minister despite being exonerated by the Linden Commission.
Now APNU’s farm-fresh accusations fault Minister Rohee  with micro-managing the police as if APNU prefers that the PPP/C government relax its proactive response to increasing criminal activities. Is APNU allied with the criminals in any way explaining why they swiftly jump to their political defence?  Regardless, and in different circumstances, it would have indeed been an honour to be, with, rather than at odds with the elderly, distinguished senior counsel.  Aren’t there better ways to be taught a lesson?