IS THE OPPOSITION INTERESTED IN JUSTICE?

Nov 09, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The opposition parties have been boxed into a corner, from which they cannot escape. They took precipitate action in prejudging the outcome of the inquiry into the July 18 protests in Linden, and now find themselves cornered.
When the events of July 18 occurred, the opposition refused to accept any responsibility for what took place, even though some of their activists were believed to have been involved in organizing the protests which resulted in the deaths of three persons.
This opposition refused to accept any responsibility – vicarious or otherwise – for what took place. But that is how the opposition in this country operates.
The media has never held the opposition to account for not acting more sternly to prevent the protest descending into unlawful actions. The media in fact paid scant attention to the terrible things that happened to ‘Candy Man’, a confectionery vendor, who said that his home and belongings were destroyed after he was abducted and accused of being responsible for the destruction of the school. The police did not charge him with any such offence and it seems more likely that he was being used as a scapegoat to deflect blame for what took place.
He was to be the fall guy for the burning down of the school. The opposition, however, needed someone to take the political fall for the deaths of the three Lindeners, and they sure are not going to let that be any of those who organized the protests.
The opposition has always operated this way. They accept no responsibility when the protests with which they are associated go haywire.
In fact, in this instance, they went as far as refusing to approve in the terms of reference, aspects of the organization of the protests. They knew that to do so would run the risk of placing the actions of the organizers under scrutiny and possibly them being held vicariously responsible.
There has been a suggestion that those responsible for the protests should be held liable for the destruction of property that ensued. This, however, is not a matter for the Commission of Inquiry. It is a matter for the civil courts, and it would be for those affected to file the necessary action against those who they feel should be held vicariously responsible.
For too long, the Guyanese people have suffered unnecessary losses simply because political protestors believe that they can do as they please and not be answerable for the destruction caused by their protests. Those who suffer losses as a result of political protests will test whether there is recourse for damages in civil courts. Guyana is becoming a litigious society, and it is difficult to see how those affected are not eventually going to try to recover what they lost through legal action.
The opposition has to give its supporters some measure of satisfaction. And it has decided that it must gain a political scalp in order to show its supporters that it has achieved something in the name of justice, never mind that it was the very opposition which pressed and got a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain a number of things in relation to the shooting.
The opposition was not interested in awaiting the outcome of the Commission of Inquiry. It wanted its own brand of justice. It wanted to prejudge the commission, and so it boxed itself into a corner by calling for the resignation of the Minister of Home Affairs. It passed a motion in the National Assembly and it insisted that the government respect that motion because it reflected the will of the majority of the House.
It blamed the police for the shootings even before the Commission of Inquiry was named. It said that the minister was responsible for the police force and therefore had to go. But strangely, it called for none of the members of the hierarchy to go.
The opposition is not interested in justice. It wants to hang the minister out to dry. It wanted to make him the fall guy even before the Commission of Inquiry was established.
The opposition is making a mockery of the very Commission of Inquiry that they demanded be established. They did not wait until the outcome of the inquiry before moving their motions; they did so in a premature and precipitate manner.
And then to make things worse they decided that they would not have anything to do with the Minister of Home Affairs. The Speaker has since ruled that he will not prevent the Minister from speaking in the Assembly and by their actions yesterday, the opposition is demonstrating gross disrespect for the ruling of the Speaker.
It is not clear whether the AFC is part of this charade. But if they are, then it places the Speaker in an untenable position.
Since the opposition is insisting that the Minister of Home Affairs be removed because he does not enjoy the support of the majority of the House, it would seem that by extension, if the AFC sides with APNU on this matter of disrespecting the ruling of the Speaker, then he tried his best to improve parliament under very trying conditions, and he Speaker by the same logic of the opposition, will have to resign, because he too would no longer be enjoying the support of the majority of the House.
It would be sad if this happens, because the present Speaker has been proactive in many ways.
If, however, he no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the House, it is hard to see how he can continue, especially in the face of the gross disrespect that was shown to him yesterday.
He may now have no choice but to resign his position.