propaganda press! freedom in Guyana

Dear Editor,
Guyanese everywhere should welcome any well-thought out initiative by the government aimed at stamping out dangerous crimes, especially of the kinds witnessed at Lusignan and Bartica, and even if this means detaining “not necessarily arresting” persons of interest for questioning.
Ever since the massacres, we have received news reports of police putting out bulletins for persons of interest to turn themselves in or of police taking such persons of interest into custody for interrogation.
Most of these persons have so far been interrogated and released on their own recognizance, which meant the police had nothing credible to go on to institute charges.
When some of those taken into custody were tortured a few months ago, and went public with their stories and showed marks on their bodies as physical evidence of torture, there was public outrage, not only because Guyana is a signatory to international treaties against torture, but especially because after the torture, the men were released without being charged.
It remains something of an enigma that despite all these criminal attacks, which government keeps saying have political links, the government has not produced credible evidence by way of criminal charges to substantiate its claim of political links.
Now we have news reports of two well-known ex-army officers, Oliver Hinckson and Dorian Massay, being taken into custody by the police for questioning into the latest criminal attacks, and the government ill-advisedly making public statements on the matter while the matter is still being investigated.
I don’t know what is the public’s perception of the government and or the police viz. a viz. the latest criminal attacks, but if both or either seeks the public’s cooperation in the fight against crimes, there has to be fairness, transparency and public accountability in dealing with persons of interest.
For government to publicly imply ex-servicemen of the GDF are involved with recruiting, training and orchestrating dangerous criminals, and also to publicly imply a political link to the attacks, require government to be in possession of hard evidence and not simply engage in making potentially damaging statements based on suspicion. Where is the incontrovertible evidence?
Evidence is what the PPP and its government has been asking accusers of corruption in government to produce to substantiate their charges and claims, even though the PPP and its government know that to produce such evidence could jeopardize the public’s ability to continue receiving “expeditious service” from government employees.
Herein also is the annoying double standard in the relationship between the government and the public on crimes: The government wants the public to help it fight armed and dangerous criminals, but totally ignores the public’s cries for government’s help to deal with corrupt criminals operating in government.
When last was a government official taken into custody to answer questions of corruption? And with all the narcotics and gun smuggling across Guyana’s borders, when last was anyone taken into custody to answer questions on these?
Meanwhile, I have noted that government recently moved to make illegal gun use a non-bailable offence, but why not make illegal gun possession a non-bailable offence? If illegal gun possession is acceptable by government providing the guns can be used for self-defence purposes against criminal attacks, then it simply perpetuates the notion that government is fraught with double standards when dealing with the law.
Emile Mervin