Dear Editor,
I have looked at the video released by Comrade Ali and I have looked at the video released by Comrade Mohamed concerning the scandal around the presidential farm. These two old friends and leaders of the two largest political parties in the country are both facing serious criminal allegations and pulling down the reputation of our beautiful Guyana in the process. At this juncture it is important that they meet and discuss the path forward. We must avoid violent confrontations, and they must both make amends to our nation for their alleged wrongdoing.
We live in a world today that is at war. Those declared war criminals by the International Court of Justice continue to live freely without their strong allies bringing them to answer for their crimes. Must we as a small simple nation also follow the bad example that they are setting and not seek justice for the people of our nation who are affected by the actions of those in leadership? Or must we demand that each of the two leaders take a path that will ensure that they pay for the wrong that they have done?
What does it mean to pay for the wrong that they have done? In the case of theft, financial restitution must be made. All that has been stolen must be returned with an additional amount equal to the value of what has been stolen paid as a fine. This is the old way of dealing with this crime of theft and is being presented as a possible solution for the judiciary to consider. If it were left to their religious beliefs both of them may end up with a hand being amputated. Financial restitution will help bring back order and remove the increasing tension within our society, and reduce the temptation for violence amongst their supporters. Most alarming is the recent allegation made by Comrade Ali that Comrade Mohamed is accused of murder, and only after the farm was exposed to the public was the case linked to Comrade Mohamed reopened. Why the delay? This should raise the alarm for all Guyanese. Justice appears to have had been delayed and appears to be only used as a weapon of convenience and retaliation in this case. If our judicial system was free of corruption, it would not require a comment from the highest office in the land to get the process restarted. This suggests that prior intervention in this case had occurred.
Given the circumstances around the allegations of theft in both cases, both leaders should demit office and seek a pardon for theft from a newly elected president so jail time is avoided, but financial restitution must be made. Such a pardon could be agreed upon with the National Assembly prior to their departure with the added condition that they will permanently retire from holding public office. This suggestion does not mean bypassing the judiciary, but is a suggestion for the judiciary to consider to help prevent a surge in violence that could lead to the killing of innocent civilians. For cases that involve more serious allegations, such as the taking of life, these allegations must also be dealt with by the judicial authorities in a manner reflecting the law.
The direction chosen by the National Assembly in this urgent and serious matter between these two Comrades must be one that is guided by a desire for a solution that brings justice without violence. This means that the National Assembly must act and do so in a pressing manner that is transparent and decisive so peace may be maintained within our society. Furthermore, a commission of inquiry (CoI) must be held to look into the functioning or lack thereof of the judicial system, with the objective of removing corruption and obstacles that prevent the smooth functioning of our nation’s judicial system. A reputable and independent 3rd party with extensive experience in the functioning of the global judicial system should lead the CoI.