These developments cannot be ignored by the society at large

Aug 03, 2008 Letters

Dear Editor,
Please allow me to offer this response to T. King’s letter captioned “Prisoner said he found bullets at army camp”.

This letter, published in the July 26th edition of the Chronicle news papers, was in fact a response to an earlier letter written by me, in which I asked questions regarding Niles’s death and the Government’s position regarding torture.

It is expected that those who are bent on ignoring the unfortunate perils in our country will do so at all cost, even if it means signalling some kind of support for breaching the human rights of citizens. In my letter of July 25th, I asked specific questions and sought clarifications on the Government’s position on the question of torture.

King proceeded to offer what he thinks are answers to my letter, and I thank him for his response.
However, the response offered is a pointed example of the paradoxical nature of the state of play in Guyana, and the convoluted and unclear signals the Government consistently sends to Guyanese.

With regard to my quest for the Government to signal to the nation, in unequivocal terms, its position on torture, King forwards this response: “The President said that his administration does not sanction torture and she ought to believe that”. I am indeed saddened by this demanding and compelling statement by Mr. King, and only wish to suggest that such demands should only stem from societies that are alien to progressive, democratic thinking.

If Guyanese are to shut up and just accept what the President and his administration tells us, we should very well declare that we are a dictatorial state. And cease touting, around the world, that Guyana is some kind of democracy.

I believe the President and the administration would be worried that someone in support of the Government is making such damaging statements. Such comments may also offer good reason for critics as to why those who question the Government and offer negative criticisms are apparently singled out for special unwarranted treatment by the Government.

Look at SN and the ads; Kaieteur News and the threats; Gordon Moseley and his accorded persona non grata status; Oliver Hinckson and his sedition/treason charge; Nagamootoo and his “prodigal son status,” and the list goes on. It is not good enough for the President to say one thing and his government’s action intimate otherwise.

On the issue of torture, for example, it is public knowledge that the Government of Guyana is a signatory to human rights conventions which make torture unlawful. However, one would assume that any government which fully subscribes to the text and spirit of the convention would demonstrate that its position on torture is clear. Guyanese must not get mixed signals; statements and actions regarding same must not conflict.

For instance, in the wake of the torture claims, the Minister of Home Affairs made statements to the effect that “Guyanese are more interest in the stuff they get in barrels than any allegation of torture”. An apology was never given to the people of Guyana. Then, months after the torture report is said to be completed, the nation is still anticipating its release for public scrutiny.

During the interim, a prisoner is burnt and beaten to death while in custody. Aren’t these mixed signals that are being sent to the people? One would assume that any torture complaint would have been treated with dispatch; but, instead, the entire nation is in limbo on the issue, while the administration seems not to be bothered.

Now Mr. T. King tells us shut up and believe the President, even though there are these glaring concerns where talk appears to be out of sync with action. What should we believe?

King tells me that Niles might have been beaten by other prisoners before the police got to him. If this is so, there are serious problems regarding proper supervision of prisoners while they are out working, and this is cause for more concern for communities.

Thus my question on the state of the investigations, since only proper investigation will reveal what actually happened. The question now becomes whether other prisoners were allowed to beat Niles to death, or whether they were unsupervised at the time of the beating, and burning. In the first instance, if this was allowed it might be open sanctioning of torture; if the latter case is upheld, then it might be serious administrative glitches which tacitly encourage torture. Herein lies the dilemma and the confusion. What are Guyanese to believe?

In his letter, while King states the administration does not condone torture, he went on to suggest that torturing criminals might be justified. This is the usual kind of “unthinkable shallow psychology” the likes of King would try on the Guyanese people, who will not be sold on cheap backward politics. The fact is no Guyanese would intimate that those who reap havoc in our society should be treated lightly.

This includes the drug cartels; massacre crews; phantom gangs; kick-down-the-door bandits; the rapists; child molesters; white collar criminals; market thieves; “Texas Rangers” etc. The fact is that every law abiding Guyanese is demanding that the full extent of the law be meted out to those who are bent on disrupting the lives of others. Similarly, every Guyanese understands that it is only the court of law that can impose the proper penalty on these persons once they are found guilty.

And beating a prisoner to death is definitely not the way to go about solving the problem, unless we declare that Moses’ Law is the order of the day.

Remember the intention is to solve the crime, not to criminalise the society more, and further dampen the relationship between the security forces and the citizenry. Co-operation is needed on all fronts to stem the crime tide that has engulfed Guyana within recent years.

King states that, “Niles broke the law and should have known better not to smuggle ammunitions in the prison”. This statement is again another sad revelation. Simply put, the suggestion here is that Niles should have imagined that he is likely to be beaten to death for his action. Isn’t this cruel thinking tantamount to promoting torture? Let the court deal with Niles, and all other accused or convicts.

King said in his letter: “Do not let your heart bleed for convicts like Niles”. The issue is not one of bleeding our hearts out for convicts, it is bleeding our hearts out to ensure that the human rights of Guyanese are protected. There are too many instances and allegations of infringement of people’s human rights, and this certainly does not look good on the part of the Government.

These are serious issues we must address without partisan motives, or without the sole interest of defending the authorities. I believe that there needs to be a clear statement, followed by corresponding action on the part of the Government regarding torture.

Guyanese deserve this much.
So, yes, as we bleed the brutal slaying of the Lindo Creek victims, the Lusignan victims, the Bartica victims, Kalamadeen’s beheading, Ronald Waddell’s execution, Minister Sawh’s slaying, and those young men who were slaughtered and kidnapped during that infamous period, and many more, we must acknowledge the unprecedented level of crime in Guyana.

Niles’s death must remind us of dangerous developing trends, where those legitimately tasked with the responsibility to protect Guyanese are accused of committing these most heinous crimes. So, we must likewise mourn Niles’s death.

Lurlene Nestor