— as OPR completes investigation into seawall shooting

THE Guyana Police Force has received legal advice that an inquest be held into the shooting death of three men on the Georgetown seawall last month.

The men killed in the shooting were Dextroy Cordis, 46, called “Dutty” of Grove, East Bank Demerara; Kwame Assanah of Buxton, East Coast Demerara; and Errol Adams, 57, also known as “Dynamite”, of Buxton, ECD.

The advice was received following the Guyana Police Force Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) completion of its probe into the matter.

Commissioner of Police (ag) David Ramnarine, said the police force has no control over when the inquest will be held; as such is done by a coroner.
However, he said what the police do have control over and an obligation to do, is to provide the coroner who is a sitting magistrate with the necessary files and statements into the matter, so that a proper inquest can be conducted.

He further stated that while much publicity followed the incident and the police were accused of executing the man, even as a ‘so-called’ witness surfaced days after the incident, no statements were provided by that supposed witness or anyone else to discredit the police operation on March 14, the day the shooting occurred.

“People who said that they knew a lot and have been on a roof and so on, they did not come to the police neither were they brought here by anyone,” Ramnarine had said.
Since the accusations were against the police force, the matter was investigated by the Police Office of Professional Responsibility, an organ in the force that investigates allegations made against officers.

Hours after the shooting, relatives of the men who were killed claimed that the circumstances surrounding the shooting death had left many questions unanswered.
This was after the police had issued a statement in relation to the shooting, pointing out that the men were cornered and began exchanging fire with the police after trailing a man from a city bank to the seawall, where he went after withdrawing a large amount of cash.

In that development, the police divulged little of the person who the men were trailing and justified the withholding of that piece of information, contending that the identity of that person must be protected.

This too was called into question, as the police had in the past released the names of other persons who were robbed after leaving the banks and other establishments.

The police also could not provide a proper explanation as to how in the exchange of gunfire with its ranks, none of the service vehicles bore bullet holes or if any of its ranks were injured.
There was the contention that the ranks who were on the operation adopted a tactical approach which prevented them from being injured.

The police had called on persons who might have had information on the incident to come forward and provide them with statements, so that the matter could be properly investigated. The president also had made comments with respect to the shooting.

Shortly after the president made his comments and called for the police to probe the shooting as is normal in such instances, the acting commissioner of police called a press conference, where he discredited the alleged witness to the shooting, the only person who came forward through his lawyer to say that he saw what had transpired.

The police also shied away from the request that the would-be witness was concerned about police protection.

During that operation, the police reportedly retrieved an unlicensed handgun, 10 passports, five drivers’ licences, two national identification cards, a police clearance and several other items.