Linden inquiry concludes, nation anxiously awaits findings

Friday marked the last day of the Linden Commission of Inquiry, heading the probe into the July 18 shooting of Allan Lewis, Shemroy Bouyea and Ron Somerset and throughout the day, submissions and final arguments were presented before the commission.
Commissioners included; Jamaican Senior Counsel Keith Knight, Guyana Appeal Court Justice Claudette Singh, Trinidadian Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal, former Chancellor of the Judiciary Cecil Kennard and former Jamaican Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe, who is chairman of the body.
Previously, the chairman of the commission, Wolfe, had indicated that each member would be afforded one hour to present their submissions and while that was done on Friday, he further informed them that they were given three weeks to submit their written submissions.
The commission has completed the investigative aspect of the inquiry and will now have to determine their findings after which they will return in January for a month to release their findings. In January, the commission will also determine the compensation aspect of the inquiry, and will decide who will be compensated, and in what quantity.

Allegation not proven
It is alleged but not proved by the opposition lawyers that the police, in an attempt to clear the bridge, opened fired, resulting in the death of three Lindeners.
As a result of the shooting, the combined opposition called for an independent investigation into the deaths of the three Lindeners; hence, the inquiry was held. The inquiry was held to determine certain elements listed in the terms of reference which was agreed upon by the opposition and the government.
Senior Counsel Keith Messiah, who is presenting the Guyana Defence Force and the Guyana Fire Service, laid over his submissions in which he stated that various witnesses had testified giving various time frames of when the shootings took place, hence, he is particularly concerned about the interpretation of the adverb “immediately”, as it makes it impossible to determine the exact time when these incidents occurred.
He requested that the precise meaning of the word “immediately” to be modified to “not very long after” so that it can make the circumstances more meaningful to the commission’s benefit.
Attorney Peter Hugh, who in association with Attorney Hukumchand, is representing the members of the Guyana Police Force in the inquiry, went through the terms of reference, noting his contentions on them.
He noted that Assistant Superintendent of Police Patrick Todd had testified that he was the only one who discharged fire on July 18, and pointed out that copper coated 00 buck shots cartridges were recovered from the deceased, and those are in contrast with the ammunitions used by the police force.

Police not at fault
The attorney stated that the standard operating procedure was adapted by the riot unit present on the bridge on July 18, and noted that it is his belief that the police’s action was justified, “especially in the manner in which they used it, that is, their training and they ought not to be faulted for that”. He cited Section three of the Criminal Law Offences Action to support his arguments.
Hugh then contended that the organisers and leaders of the protest should take some responsibility for allowing the crowd to remain on the bridge, and instead of attempting to remove them, they encouraged them to remain there, and this was seen in a video tendered in the inquiry.
The attorney further argued that “had the leaders and the organisers of the protest/march confirmed to the conditions granted, then this entire exercise would not have been necessary… there would have been no incident whatsoever with the Guyana Police Force”.
The attorney went on to discuss the issue of compensation, and stated that it would have to be taken into account that some of the persons testified were participating in an illegal event when determining if compensation would be granted, and if so in what quantum and degree.
The commissioners queried some of the attorney’s arguments, which were discussed between the two parties.