…Is it really the ‘Jagdeo-era killings’?

By Lenno Craig
PRIOR to their 2015 electoral success, both the AFC and the APNU spent the greater part of a decade calling for a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the unprecedented criminal mayhem and extra-judicial killings that engulfed the country during the decade ending around 2010. As part of its social contract, the Coalition is under obligation to hold inquests into the killings listed as part of its own dossier presented to a myriad of international agencies.

This week a CoI into the Lindo Creek Massacre was announced; since then a number of issues were brought to the fore.
Major among them is that the lone commissioner, Justice Trotman is the father of a serving Government Minister and would therefore introduce political bias, thereby affecting the credibility of the entire Inquiry.

There is a question mark on how meritorious this objection is. Justice Trotman has an unblemished record as a distinguished Guyanese and Commonwealth lawyer and jurist. It is therefore not in his interest to skew the inquiry and cloak his accomplishments in ignominy and bring public ridicule to the proud family reputation of excellence.

The advanced age of Justice Trotman was [also] brought into question. The government seems to have an ‘ol boy’ for almost every assignment and there seem to be little or no mechanisms for transfer of knowledge and experience to the upcoming generation. Next, why only one commissioner?

I have not heard an official explanation from the government, but for whatever reason, the government for its part should have anticipated and addressed these criticisms and questions. Perhaps a second and much younger commissioner with proven independence should have been added. Had that been the case, the objections raised would have been substantially addressed.

References to “the Jagdeo-era killings” has no doubt drawn sharp and irate critical response from Mr. Jagdeo, but it is difficult to escape the tag when he was firmly in control of the apparatus of the state. He wants a “comprehensive” (big-tent) CoI covering all incidences for the entire period; anything less is seen as an attempt to exculpate “political operatives” of the current government who participated in the criminal mayhem. He claimed to have a mountain of evidence implicating current government operatives and failed to lift a finger even though his party in government had all the resources of state, but stoutly refused to conduct inquests.

Mr. Jagdeo wants to be consulted in determining the Terms of Reference(ToR) for a comprehensive CoI, but he will face credibility issues. Mr. Jagdeo should be reminded that the President is constitutionally required to consult and/or obtain the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition on a number of matters, but convoking CoIs is not one of them.

Considering Jagdeo’s public stance of non-cooperation since 2015, made more inflexible after the naming of the GECOM chair, his offer of cooperation is surprising, garrulous and conceited; one wonders if he could be taken seriously. At this point it’s the president’s call, he is well within his right if he chooses to completely ignore Jagdeo.

In such event Jagdeo has two options: (1) Craft suggested ToRs and make an unsolicited submission to the president for consideration and (2) Release to the public alternative TORs in the hope of bringing public pressure to the president for their inclusion. Beyond these two choices Jagdeo has little recourse.

There is merit in conducting several focused inquiries; the events were much like a bowl of spaghetti– important details on specific cases may be lost if taken together. However, by whatever route, at the very least the entire decade should be covered if the government wants to stand on the side of credibility while discharging a key component of its commitment to the people.

Whether the government do several focused CoIs or otherwise, it should heed the call for credible international jurists to sit as commissioners, not because the skills are not available locally, but because of the possibility that “Crimes Against Humanity” may have occurred if there is a state element in the killings. If there is need to escalate cases to the International Criminal Court, it can do so without reproach.

Second, while in opposition the government made demands for an international panel; it cannot now show disinclination. If it does then it loses credibility and with it a golden opportunity to bring closure.

There was an eye-popping letter to the press by former Prime Minister Sam Hinds, in which he justified the employment of a “counterforce” to put down the criminal resistance because the police “showed remarkable inability” to cope with the magnitude of crimes.

He finds allegations against Dr. Leslie Ramsammy for procuring spy equipment for the “phantom force” unworthy of consideration. Hinds’ letter is a veiled admission that the long list of extra judicial killings of civilians, activists and joint services ranks were both state-sponsored and justified. This is hair-raising and may indicate that the opposition is shedding crocodile tears and thus views any inquest with trepidation.