Roy Beepat and the putsch in Guyana

Mar 20, 2020 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

In my Wednesday, March 18, 2020, column, titled, “Deadly power struggle inside the PNC,” I noted the following; “What was born as a reaction to the Mottley arrangement was a ménage à trois in Guyanese politics – VT inside the PNC, four actors in GECOM, and the police force. It is this ménage a trios that is currently derailing the recount at the Arthur Chung Convention Centre (ACCC). What is actually taking place in Guyana right now is a putsch.”
Please note I included the police force. The role of the police force came into sharp focus when Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mr. Edgar Thomas, had refused to remove GECOM Commissioner, Sase Gunraj from the GECOM command centre.
Mr. Thomas’s logic was that Gunraj had authority to be in the GECOM building, because he was one of the constitutional bearers of GECOM’s landscape. He (Thomas) was removed from the sites within minutes and assigned to patrol duties by an order which in the maelstrom of events that have been suffocating Guyana since Wednesday, March 4th, we don’t know where in the hierarchy it came from.
My guess is that it had to come from either one of the deputy commissioners who would be higher than an Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner himself.
Then at the Arthur Chung Convention Centre, GECOM Commissioner, Robeson Benn refused a police order to exit the building, where GECOM officials were directing the containers to their parking facilities. These containers contain ballot boxes. Benn told the police he had the authority to be there by right of being a GECOM Commissioner.
Let us offer an analogy. There is a commotion inside a bank. The supervisor for foreign exchange asks the police to remove the Deputy CEO (DCEO). The police cannot accede to his request, because he has no authority to make that decision independent of the DCEO for a commonsensical reason. Every organization including the Boy Scouts has a hierarchy. The hierarchy embodies the line of authority. A DCEO cannot tell a CEO that he must leave the building. If he refuses, he is in his right. The chairman of the board can so order him.
Once Mr. Gunraj showed his accreditation to the police, he had the authority to be in the GECOM command centre. Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, told a press conference that Deputy Chief Election Officer, Roxanne Myers, was giving orders against a GECOM Commissioner who had greater authority than her. The police physically tried to remove Benn.
Since these incidents involving the police, the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Private Sector Commission have issued public statements requesting the police to act with professional impartiality. Now a new situation has developed which brings the action of the police force into question.
The owner of Giftland Mall, Roy Beepat, has told the media that a member of the Guyana Police Force has informed him that if any of his security cameras are aimed to the west of his building (specifically the ACCC and the access roads thereto) their positions are to be altered, because it is “illegal” to have them pointed in that direction.
If this wasn’t a very dreadful development, you can ascribe asinine dimensions to it. Pertinent questions swirl around this police request. Let’s enumerate them. First, the mall was there for over five years with security cameras naturally ringing it, a building that is of commercial importance.
Secondly, all surveillance cameras capture the adjacent environment including private buildings and pubic roadways.
Thirdly, security cameras are a priceless crime deterrent. In fact, the CARICOM Secretariat has surveillance cameras which jut out to the south, north, east and west of the building. CARICOM Secretariat’s cameras can see who is climbing over the western fence and can determine if the persons came from within the vicinity of the ACCC.
Fourthly, the containers containing ballot boxes (which seems to be the reason for the sudden caution about the focus of the cameras) came into the ACCC’s compound at a time when the mall had its cameras years now pointing in different directions.
Fifthly, there is no law, I opine, anywhere in the world that can stop a resident from outfitting cameras on his building that looks beyond his structure. It is not illegal to have surveillance cameras fitted out from the exterior of your business place. It is a basic security feature that obtains throughout the world. The lawyers have so advised Mr. Beepat.
We conclude with the sixth enumerator. Why would the police want the mall’s cameras removed when their presence is a plus for all stakeholders – GECOM, opposition parties, APNU+AFC, the police, the international observers?
The cameras can identify anyone wanting to tamper with the containers. All stakeholders should welcome that situation. Why do the police not want this added security value?
In my Wednesday column, I refer to a putsch in Guyana. I honestly think there is one.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

---