The crusade against Rohee

Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee

Clement Rohee, the home affairs minister, is a creature of the ruling People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/ C). He is a stalwart and one of the foremost members of the party whose tough stance against opposition forces makes him a target for attacks and vilification.
Not long after the budget cuts, the opposition shifted its focus on another matter, this time zeroing-in on Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, laying the blame at his feet for the killing of three Lindeners during the opposition-orchestrated demonstration against the tariff hike in the mining community.
Though it was thoroughly explained that the minister does not have the remit to issue specific instructions to the Guyana Police Force as that task is within the purview of the police commissioner, the opposition quickly capitalised on the killings to launch their salvo against the police and Rohee.
It must be noted that the tariff hike was initially agreed to by the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) with the government, but the Alliance For Change (AFC) on hearing the news, went to Linden and told residents that the APNU sold them out, forcing the coalition to backpedal on its decision.
It must also be noted that the protesters were illegally occupying the Linden/ Mackenzie Bridge, and were verbally and physically abusive to the police. The government in keeping with its thrust to maintain a stable political, social and economic environment, conducive to all Guyanese to develop and prosper, and to get to the bottom of the Linden saga, magnanimously agreed with the Alliance For Change (AFC) and the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) to establish an inquiry commission to investigate the mayhem.
Even though the commission was established to investigate the Linden saga, the opposition piloted by Opposition Leader David Granger with the support of Alliance For Changer leader Khemraj Ramjattan, proceeded to pass a no-confidence motion against Rohee, using their combined one-seat majority in the House.
The motion effectively sought to blame Rohee for the killings in Linden and gag him from speaking in Parliament. This move, the Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman, following the advice of two legal minds, contended the House has no authority to table. The two attorneys consulted by Trotman, Senior Council Rex McKay, is an opposition lawyer, and Attorney Stephen Fraser is associated with the AFC, and despite this fact, the Speaker’s ruling did not go down well with the AFC and APNU parliamentarians, who rudely disrupted the sitting of the House.

Empty rantings
To date, the opposition, notwithstanding their tumultuous rantings that Rohee gave the police permission to shoot, are yet to prove this claim, and before the inquiry commission; the allegation was exposed as another opposition absurdity.
As it regards the allegations that the police shot the protesters, this much vaunted claim by the opposition in public, is yet to be proven, not even by United Kingdom ballistics expert brought in by the AFC.
It was no surprise that AFC Chairman Nigel Huges, who is representing the families of the dead Lindeners, during his interrogation of Senior Superintendent Clifton Hicken, on realising that he was not getting anywhere in proving his unfounded allegations, made a ridiculous accusation against the lawman, and stormed out of the commission.
A while after that episode was over, the opposition determined to gag Rohee from addressing the House on national security matters, brought another motion on the suggestion of the Speaker to prevent him from speaking, and it got the support of the Speaker, a move widely believed to be a contradiction to his first ruling.
That was not all, the matter was sent before the Privileges Committee, even though Rohee did not breach any privilege of the House.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall said a substantive motion to stop the minister from speaking will continue to be an impotent exercise, as he has done no wrong in the assembly.
There are only two people in the National Assembly that can be removed by a process from within the assembly, and they are the Speaker himself and the leader of the opposition, and that is because both of them are products of a process which began and ended in the National Assembly, Nandlall explained.
Nandlall has since moved to the High Court to challenge the ruling of the Speaker.