Dear Editor
MINISTER Simona Broomes’ New Thriving restaurant parking lot confrontation with two security guards encompasses two main issues: morality and the law. These two issues are unrelated and cannot be conflated. My contentions are not intended to, and do not, defend or excuse the behaviour of the minister or the guards.

(A) MORAL: Minister Broomes’ critics, including Stabroek News and Kaieteur News, have argued she and her driver were wrong to remove the no-parking signs from the New Thriving restaurant parking lot. Everyone accepts this. I criticised the minister for doing so. The premise for this criticism is a consensus view that the parking lot is private property with its own rules, which must be obeyed by all, regardless of status. Guyana’s Minister of Social Protection, Amna Ally, said it best. She said “Everyone must observe the rule of law; whether you are a minister or you are an ordinary person. That is what is expected.” Excellent! I fully concur. I’m sure that Minister Broomes herself accepts this fact.
(B) The rule of law constitutes laws, rules and regulations that govern society, which are justly and impartially enforced to ensure orderly governance of society. Fair and equitable application of these rules is known as equal justice under law. This introduces the second matter — the law, which has no connection whatsoever to (A) or whether or not the minister or the guards were right or wrong. These two issues, therefore, cannot be conflated

(C) The LAW: The laws of Guyana mandate that any person convicted in Guyana of serious, violent crimes must register as a convicted person. The law prohibits such persons from owning or possessing a gun. The law also mandates that any person deported to Guyana from a foreign country, who has been convicted of serious, violent crimes, must register as a convicted person. The law also prohibits said persons from owning or possessing a gun.

(D) The minister’s critics espoused the principle that everyone must obey the rule of law, regardless of status. These same critics, however, hypocritically, simultaneously argue that the security guard, who is a murder convict prohibited by law from possessing a gun, should be given a pass for breaking the law, because he deserves a second chance to be gainfully employed. The prohibition on dangerous felons possessing guns is to protect the public from danger. Hence, critics cannot intelligently and credibly argue that the minister must obey the law but the guard must not. It is a self-contradictory argument that is irreconcilable!

(E) Yes, we want convicts to be rehabilitated and reintegrated back into society. Yes, we want rehabilitated convicts to be gainfully employed. Yes, we commend and must reward those who have turned their lives around, are productive citizens, and are avoiding recidivism. However, they can do all of the above without possessing a gun or working in an industry that requires their use of a gun. This is what the law mandates and all of us are required to obey the rule of law.

(F) What about the persons who were convicted in Guyana for killing or shooting your brother, son or daughter, sister, father or other relative? What if they served their time in prison, are now released and gainfully employed? Should they too be employed with a gun in violation of the law, if they so choose? Having argued for equal treatment and equal application of the rule of law, Minister Broomes’ critics are contending that all convicts in Guyana, once they have transformed their lives, must be allowed to possess a gun if they so choose. Is this what we want for a society, or are the critics common hypocrites who are only advancing this nonsensical argument to justify their attacks on the minister?

(G) We cannot have convenient double standards just to lob political attacks. In all that we do, let fairness reign. The law is the law. It must be enforced equally regardless of status or circumstance. As Minister Amna Ally said, whether you are a minister or an ordinary person, you must obey the rule of law. Yes, Minister Broomes must follow the rule of law and so too must the security guard and all other citizens.

(A) If we as a society claim to uphold equal justice and fair application of the law, why then is Stabroek News and Kaieteur News and other media entities, which have been fuelling a campaign to influence public sentiment against the minister, and which have been advocating for compliance of the ministerial code of conduct and strict adherence to the rule of law regardless of status, refusing to inform the public that the security guard is a murder convict who is prohibited by law from possessing a gun? Why are they only publishing derogatory information about the minister and are attempting to mislead the public into believing that guard is a saint? What is their agenda? THEY MUST STOP HIDING

THE TRUTH AND START TELLING THE TRUTH TO ENLIGHTEN THE PUBLIC!

Regards
Rickford Burke