The Rule of law

Jul 29, 2012 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

(In the light of calls for Minister Rohee’s resignation when the government has accepted the need for an independent Commission of Inquiry, I submit the following comments I made at the ‘Rule of Law march’ at the Square of the Revolution when similar calls were made about Minister Gajraj.)
‘Tonight I would like to speak about three (3) matters: firstly, the one immediately in front of us, the Gajraj Affair. Secondly, where we are as a nation and where we would like to be and thirdly, how we can get from here to there.
So first we talk about the Gajraj Affair. Well, one of the reasons ROAR has not focused on Gajraj – not even called for his resignation – but to say he must simply recuse himself, is that he should take the moral position to say:  “I shall step aside (from the inquiry); I shall build firewalls between me and my job to see that justice being done.”
We did not call him a ‘murderer’ – as I heard in the litany that was repeated when this meeting began – for this simple reason. That if we talk about justice; if we talk about the Rule of Law, then the cardinal principle of the rule of law is that we presume your innocence until you are proven guilty.
We may have the facts; we may have the knowledge, but there is a procedure that has to be followed. So we say, and I say to you this evening, that it is for this reason that the proper procedure be followed – that we must have a Commission of Inquiry that is fair, independent and impartial, to pass judgment on Gajraj. The PPP cannot have it both ways. It cannot say on one hand, that Gajraj is innocent and on the other hand not set up a proper inquiry. But we also cannot, on one hand, say that he’s guilty and then in the same breath say that we need a Commission of Inquiry. We cannot have such contradictions or we well shall be pointed out as speaking with forked tongues…
And it is for this reason that ROAR, my fellow citizens of Guyana, is interested in having a Commission of Inquiry that is properly constituted, that is so comprised that all of us can accept its verdict – that there can be no doubts.
My fellow citizens, I said I would also like to speak about where we are as a country and where we want to go. The second part is easier to answer: where we want to go? All of us – it does not matter of what race or of what religion we belong – each of us want two things, at a minimum. We want to live in dignity and we want to live in respect with those who are around us. To be able to live in dignity, we must be able to create a life as we see it.
We cannot have the lives of our sisters and brothers snuffled out with impunity. And I would like to say that when I listened to the litany of deaths when this meeting began, I was saddened because – and again I speak my truth to you – not only those who were gunned down by the arms of the state we should mourn, but we should also mourn every individual, every innocent individual, who were killed by others. So it means that, that litany should include the Indians also who were killed by bandits, the Africans who were killed by bandits, the Chinese or whoever were killed by bandits. They also…they also suffered the ultimate denial of their human rights – the right to life.
So when I speak to you and I look at this crowd in front of me, we have to accept where we are today – almost forty years after we have been granted Independence –  that we are still a people divided politically on ethnic lines. That’s the truth and we cannot shy away from that. You know there are many of us who have a great weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth when we talk about the fact that we see each other different ethnically.
When I spoke out against Indians being beaten in the streets of Georgetown on January 12th 1998, I said this country has to deal with why African Guyanese could beat those Indians. It was because, my friends, we have to inquire (I called for a Commission of Inquiry then) that there must be reasons why these things happened. And we cannot keep sweeping them under the rug.
I have come amongst you to tell you my truth. You may disagree with me, but we must speak our truth openly and not “mamaguy” each other, as the Trinidadians would say. I support Tacuma Ogunseye to say that each one of us has a right to defend ourselves by any means necessary. All of us. This is an inalienable right – no one can take that away from us.
But I want to say to you that in the context of Guyana, if we want to move forward, we have to reject violence as a political instrument for effectuating change. I am not saying that I reject violence at all times and at all places. Even Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence said that he would prefer violence to cowardice. I too would hold that line.  But as a political instrument, my brothers and sisters, for us to move forward to some kind of place where we can have that dignity and live with respect, there cannot be a place for violence as a political tool in Guyana. We are too small, we are too fractured, and it will lead to hurt that will never be healed.

---

---