IN THE aftermath of the horrific scenes on the East Bank last Thursday, words to describe the reactions of opposition politicians and the reportage by the media house they control, cannot be used for public reading, hence restraint as the police showed that same day.

To reiterate, the opposition, in this particular case the AFC, cannot escape blame for the atrocities meted out to Guyanese in the vicinity of Agricola on the day in question. While much was said about this, all must be reminded that it was the AFC’s Chairman, Nigel Hughes along with the party’s Vice Chairman, Moses Nagamootoo, who promised consequences if President Donald Ramotar did not accede to their ridiculous ultimatum for him to relieve Minister Clement Rohee of his post.
The ultimatum expired and Minister Rohee still is on the job. This angered Hughes and Nagamootoo and what followed would register as another dark day in the country’s history. The expiration of the ultimatum was the genesis of the horror seen on the East Bank that day. Therefore, the subsequent eloquent use of cosmetic oration by Mr. Hughes cannot divorce him and the AFC from being held responsible for what transpired.
In his address to a poorly attended march in parts of the city of the following day the terror was unleashed, Mr. Hughes never made mention of the despicable incidents Guyanese, including children, mothers with babies and the elderly, were subjected to by “peaceful protestors” and “justice seekers”.
For the AFC Chairman, the robbery, burning of a vehicle and injury and trauma many were forced to endure, didn’t matter. For him the welfare of those Guyanese was not important. What seemed profoundly important to him was the welfare of those who menacingly wielded cutlasses and who burnt and robbed in the glare of cameras.
As a matter of fact, as quoted in the Kaieteur News on Page 3 of its Saturday, October 13 edition, Mr. Hughes said:
“…I am not calling for peace (sic); all I want is equal justice, and I don’t care how we get it but we must get it.” A very chilling, irresponsible, and almost seditious utterance from someone who is primed with ambition to seek the highest office in the land.
Here, in his own words, the Chairman of a Parliamentary party is boldly proclaiming that he would not call for peace after his countrymen and women were robbed and maimed by an armed, instructed gang who proudly showed their might as they instilled fear.
Here is the AFC Chairman saying for all to hear that he doesn’t care how he gets what he wants. From what was seen in Agricola, there seems no ambiguity that Mr. Hughes is actually saying that even if people have to suffer at the hands of a directed mob, he must have what he wants. People who voted for the AFC also suffered at the hands of the gangs. Mr. Hughes is also saying that even if his own supporters have to be stripped and relieved of their property, beaten and traumatised, he must get what he wants. Clearly, from his own utterances, Mr. Hughes has coldheartedly exhibited a lack of concern for people and the country as a whole.
In all of his doings, he was fully supported by the AFC’s Vice-Chairman, Moses Nagamootoo, who cannot mask his vengeful demeanour for the Administration.
Just as a reminder, Mr. Nagamootoo said recently that he would stop at nothing to unseat the Ramotar administration. Again, based on the terrifying scenes at Agricola and what preceded it in Linden, Nagamootoo is now part of the opposition-instigated mayhem, something which he had forthrightly condemned in the past! It begs the question: Is it that Mr. Hughes and Mr. Nagamootoo’s ambition paramount to the safety and well-being of citizens?
It also begs another question: Is Mr. Hughes speaking authoritatively for the AFC? If so, then the party’s Leader, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, must pronounce and let the party supporters and the rest of the citizenry be clear that the AFC does not support peace but supports mayhem and the atrocities meted out against those who suffered last Thursday.
If Mr. Hughes is not speaking on behalf of the party, then Mr. Ramjattan has the responsibility to condemn unconditionally what happened in Agricola and to sanction his Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The AFC supporters must also speak out as to whether they support the violence seen since Mr. Hughes proudly articulated that he does not want peace.
Given what Mr. Hughes said publicly, one cannot avoid asking if it is not sufficient for action to be taken by the police. Mr. Hughes in the same address alluded to and printed in the edition of the Kaieteur News mentioned, asked why the Administration cannot comprehend how the people of Agricola stood up for themselves.
While there is a reason for protest following the death of Shaquille Grant, it could never be a reason for the horrific scenes that day. By making such a statement, is Mr. Hughes saying that he supports the marauding gangs, the robberies, the burning and the long hours of inconvenience Guyanese endured? All Guyanese must demand an answer from him; the police too.