Dear Editor,
With the latest Police shootings of three bandits on the seawall, this Government has found itself in a quandary. I made that statement on the loud call by the friends, families and relatives of the deceased for an inquiry to be set up to ascertain the “true” cause of those men’s deaths.
The family members are true to their cause, because they are going on the established, age-old fact that whenever there is a shooting death of — and I would now use the words “alleged criminals” — by the Police, family members would readily assume the position that the Police shot “wrong guys”; that they “acted recklessly” in shooting “innocent victims.”
Their argument becomes more compelling when you take a keen look at the criminal antics of the PNC when in Opposition. The Opposition then were particularly fond of criminals, referring to them in terms of endearment such as the guys are jobless, so they have no alternative but to revert to a life of crime. They were called freedom fighters, persons who were standing up for their rights — whatever those criminal rights are — even to beatifying them, draping their coffins with the national flag. These and other matters too numerous to mention were the criminal and subversive intents of the Opposition. Even when he became President, you would recall that, soon after his inauguration, Mr David Granger pardoned criminals, giving them a grand respite, releasing 50 of them back into society. The relationship between criminals and the PNC goes back a long way, so the relatives of those who died on the seawall are consistent with this historical arrangement between “their party” and criminals, so there is no need for them to change their strategy now? Mr Granger, please call an inquiry. Now, here comes the crux of my argument: would Granger succumb to the dictates of the family and his track record, or would he be honest and civil with us? Should he vindicate or vilify the Police? These are questions that he alone must answer. Should Granger decide to go the route of an inquiry, what would be the final outcome? Who should be the sacrificial lamb? Who should take the blame?
If you would rightly recall, this was the strategy used to get rid of the former Commissioner of Police in that highly controversial CoI. That Inquiry was set up to look into the “assassination plot” of the President with a purposeful bias to get Commissioner Seelall Persaud out of office. If any of the above scenarios could be applied, then it is only logical that any such inquiry should result in the desired effect, in the dismissal of the acting commissioner.
Respectfully,
Neil Adams
