We cannot have two standards for justice in Guyana

Jun 22, 2008 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Emile Mervin’s letter captioned “New revelations about Khan pose tough questions of Gajraj, McDonald”, SN Friday June 20, 2008, poignantly highlight the discordant chimes in the suggestion of one of Guyana’s three anonymous enterprising columnists, that the investigation into extra-judicial killings should be expanded to include all aspects of crime in Guyana.

Somehow or the other, seemingly, as a society we still cannot comprehend that there is a marked difference between civilian criminal behaviour, however horrendous, and agencies and officials of the state becoming involved in criminality and human and civil rights abuses. In a nutshell, it is a matter of quote, “Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes”.

We have laws and authorities that are designated to attend to and deal with civilian criminality. We have nothing, absolutely nothing in place to transparently and objectively deal with extreme lawlessness that involves a possible conspiracy between political and governmental officials, law enforcement officials, and questionable characters in the civilian populace.

There are certain irrefutables that render the automatism to use regrettable violent and macabre criminality as an excuse, a justification, or explanation for exterminatory vigilantism obsolete.

We live in a nation of Laws, Constitutional Freedoms and Rights. For our society to work it is imperative that these Laws, Freedoms and Rights be protected against infringements and abuse.

The protectors, the guardians of these Laws, Freedoms and Rights, are those sworn into office and positions associated with the administration of Justice and Social order.

They do not have to be personally and actively involved with wrong doing to be in violation of their oath to protect and preserve these Laws, Freedoms and Rights that are, after all, Constitutional Guarantees to every citizen regardless of whether that citizen is the lowest tier or most respectable persona.

They violate their oath and official responsibility when they do not actively attend to or investigate allegations or incidents that give rise to suspicions that there are abuses or curtailment of those constitutional guarantees. And then becomes the question, “Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes”?

Mr. Editor, violent crime is always a regrettable social scourge every society, from time to time, has to deal with. Sometimes it takes on overwhelming proportions, creating fear and desperation among the law abiding citizenry. Guyana is not unique in terms of this experience.

Neither is Guyana unique in terms of extra-judicial attempts to cull the communities’ officialdom associate with such crimes, of suspects of criminal wrong doing. Where the uniqueness of Guyana stands out is in examination of the whole Roger Khan saga.

The political party in Government made strident and consternated submissions that the manner in which Khan was apprehended or abducted violated his rights to due process and the presumption of innocence.

Many others in our society were and still are of this disposition, to the point of excusing or justifying Khan’s admitted involvement in extra-judicial actions. And let me remind you that I did, very early after Khan was arrested, pen a letter arguing that he was entitled to these protections.

What I find absolutely amazing about the train of thought of advocates for Roger Khan’s judicial rights and freedoms, however, is their frightening incapacity to see the hypocrisy in their positions.

They are arguing vehemently for rights for an accused and suspected person who, based on his own admissions, was involved in denying on a permanent basis to others.

And they are doing so while ignoring the irrefutable logic that those who Roger might have had a hand in sanctioning extra-judicially were no less entitled to the same rights and presumptions of innocence they stridently demand for him.

We cannot have two standards for justice in Guyana and expect the turbulence in our society to subside. And let me state forthwith that I absolutely reject any notion that we can kill our way to a resolution, regardless of the source of such notion.

We cannot pontificate before the people about the importance of the rule of law when the suspected violators happen to come from certain segments of our population, while performing acrobatic feats of logic in order to obfuscate serious infringements under selective circumstances.

Our Law Books define Law as a quote, “rule of human conduct enforced by the state through its authority of the Courts”, or words close to that effect. The state has an obligation to ensure that no individual or entity is held above or below the law.

When the State fails or avoids its obligation so to do, then civil society has an obligation to seek redress from agencies outside the control of said state. The AFC’s petition to the UN regarding extra-judicial killings in Guyana is such an endeavour.
Robin Williams

---

---