Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Lt. Col. Sydney James

"We are trying to get to the truth of this matter and every single document that exists and should exist, should be here that is what my point is." Selwyn A. Pieters

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on September 03, 2014

As a lawyer with significant experience in human rights, civil rights and non-adversarial matters, I was retained to represent its interest of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) at the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry. I am currently co-counsel with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

Guyana Defence Force (GDF) Lieutenant Colonel Sydney James conducted investigations into weapons issued to R. Corbin, W. Skeete and the Ministry of National Development during the 1970's. His investigation was deficient as he did not looked into the context nor even whether the GDF was simply a storage and record management facility for weapons donated by one socialist government to another. Citizen's defence through the Guyana People's Milita was fundamentally to have citizens trained for the defence of the country: "Every Citizen A Soldier"

Intro

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. You are setting examples in brevity. Mr. Pieters, I know you are here and would wish to be heard.
Mr. Pieters: Yes, Good Morning Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for allowing me to participate and thank you to the Commissioners as well. Good Morning Lt. Col. James.
Lt. Col. James: Good Morning.
Attorney for the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) [Mr. Selwyn Pieters]: I am Selywn Pieters and I represent the Guyana Trades Union Congress and I have some questions for you.

Establishing Identity- Regimental Number

Let me just confirm this right off the bat. Your regimental number is 99230?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And you are the only person within the Guyana Defense Force that can hold that regimental number?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: You would agree that within the military that is akin to a military DNA, it is your identifier?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: So that even if there is more than one Sydney James in the Guyana Defense Force, it is traceable to you regardless of how they address you whether you are called Syd, Sydney or your middle name?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: So in other words, whether it is William Smith or Gregory Smith, what distinguishes one from the other is the regimental number 4141, is that not so?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: The Commission was shown a document and I believe that Mr. Pilgrim went through that document yesterday as well with you with that purported signature from Col. McPherson. Do you recall the exercise yesterday in respect to that document?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: You recall that Col. McPherson‟s regimental number is 9129?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
19
Mr. Pieters: Regimental number on the document is 9140?
Lt. Col. James: I will have to check, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Can that document be put before the Witness?
Mr. Chairman: I lost that last question. Be kind enough to repeat.
Mr. Pieters: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, the question was…
Mr. Chairman: 9129 is Col. McPherson's regimental number
Mr. Pieters: Correct and the number on the document is 9140.
Lt. Col. James: If I might say the numbers on this document looks to me like 9142 and not a zero. I could be wrong.
Mr. Pieters: Well let us assume it is 9142, let me ask you in respect to that particular regimental number, did you ascertain during your investigation to whom that number belonged?
Lt. Col. James: Sir, I have not had cause to investigate this document. The first time I saw this document was at the Commission, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Right and so you would have had 24 hours between yesterday and today, did you take any steps to check the male numbering register for example?
Lt. Col. James: No Sir, but I can do that if you so desire and if the Commission so directs, Sir. It would only take about five to seven minutes. I would be present right here and get the information with respect to any regimental number you wish, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: I do not propose that we break at this time to have that though. It might be useful to have it confirmed.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Very well.
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
20
Lt. Col. James: I just for the benefit of the Commission, just so that we do not waste time, I will ensure that the regimental number for 9140 and 9142 is brought to the Commission. I do not know if that is okay with you, Sir?
Mr. Pieters: Well it is up to the Commissioners. We only ask questions from this part. We assist the Commission. It is up to the Commission from that point whether they want to receive it.
Mr. Chairman: You want to check three numbers?
Lt. Col. James: No, the Counsel did say the number was 9140, I am saying it looks to me like 9142 so I was going to bring the information with respect to both numbers, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, 42…
Lt. Col. James: 9140 and 9142, Sir.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I would love if you could get it after the break today.
Lt. Col. James: You will get it before the break. I was looking for someone from the Guyana Defense Force.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Okay

Years of Service and Impending Retirement
Lt. Col. James: I am not seeing anyone here.
Mr. Pieters: We know that you were the Chief for Intelligence since 3rd September, 2007 and you have been a member of the Intelligence course since 3rd March, 1980?
Lt. Col. James: I was a member of the Guyana Defense Force from 3rd March, 1980 but I would have done recruit course, which is three months so I would have been at the unit from around June 1980, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: How old were you when you joined the Guyana Defense Force?
Lt. Col. James: Let me just calculate. I was born 1959.
Mr. Chairman: 21 years.
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
21
Lt. Col. James: About 21 years old or so, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: You were 21 years old?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct.
Mr. Pieters: How old would you be today?
10:12hrs
Lt. Col. James: Actually I am 54 and approximately…
Mr. Chairman: Is that relevant though, having given us all the details…
Mr. Pieters: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I just missed what you just said.
Mr. Chairman: No, I did ask whether that was relevant but, unlike the girls, he was anxious to answer … [Laughter]
Lt. Col. James: I am in excess of 54 years, Sir. My 55th birthday is 29th October.
Mr. Pieters: Right, so 29th October is the day when you statutorily are required to leave the Armed Forces unless you get an extension?
Lt. Col. James: No, we normally do not have extension, Sir. I leave on 29th October, Sir.

Never Worked at the Joint Intelligence Committee at Ogle 
Mr. Pieters: Right, Mr. Chairman, that was the point of the question; to find out when Lt. Col.'s retirement date is. You mentioned in Paragraph four that the Joint Intelligence Committee at Ogle was headed by Laurie Lewis?
Lt. Col. James: The deceased now, yes.
Mr. Pieters: When did you become aware of that particular point?
Lt. Col. James: I would not say it was a particular point in time. It was during my tenure in the G2 Branch from 1980, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Would you have served at Ogle in the 1980‟s?
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
22
Lt. Col. James: No, Sir, I was a Junior Investigator, followed by being promoted to Seniority Senior Investigator. My specialty is investigation, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Your evidence is that you were never deployed to work at Ogle.
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: At that material point in time, were you aware of other GDF Personnel who were deployed to work at Ogle?
Lt. Col. James: I know personnel from the Guyana Defense Force was deployed there, Sir. I cannot specifically say who those persons were but I know the staff there comprises of members of the Joint Services, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: I just want to ensure at the particular point in time you had that knowledge?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Any evidence that you gave to the Commission with respect to the Joint Intelligence Committee would then be second-hand and third-hand information?
Lt. Col. James: Second-hand information, Sir.

Issuance of arms and ammunitions to external agencies
Mr. Pieters: Very well. You mentioned in paragraph five that the GDF has a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the issuance of arms and ammunitions to external agencies.
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: In paragraph seven you described the procedures for issuance for weapons and ammunition to external agencies.
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
.....

WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
25

Mr. Pieters: .... Let me ask you this, in respect to weapons issued between 1976 and 2002, most of the external agencies, would you say, were encapsulated under the Ministry of Home Affairs and National Development?
Lt. Col. James: I never used Ministry of Home Affairs in any of my evidence to the Commission, Sir. I would have referred to a number of named external organisations, a number of named Joint Service Organisations and number of named Parliamentary Organisations.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that and those agencies would be the Police Force, the Prison Service, the National Service, Guymine Constabulary and you went through those yesterday?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: I think the Customs was mentioned too as one of the agencies.
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: I did hear that, Mr. Chairman, for enforcement purposes, and you also mentioned, in respect to after 1992, Mazda Mining, Omai; I think Customs came in after 1992 and the Anti-Narcotics Unit.
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir. It is listed in my witness statement, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Let us look back then at these weapons that were issued and I think Mr. Ram covered one of the periods within which those weapons were issued as a significant point in time and that was shortly after the burning down of the Ministry of National Development; that incident occurred in July, 1979.
Lt. Col. James: We were trying to source the reference, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Right, so a number of weapons were issued to Comrade Skeete…
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
26
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: The Witness wants to refer to the Exhibits which refer to that. I think he got it.
Lt. Col. James: You are speaking about serials 13-16, Sir?
Mr. Pieters: Yes.
Lt. Col. James: Yes, Sir, “purportedly issued to a Comrade Skeete, Ministry of National Development for those…”
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I am sorry, that document is Exhibit what now?
Ms. Rahamat: SCJ 5.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Yes, we should just let it be read into the record.
Lt. Col. James: I was say “purportedly issued to a Comrade Skeete, Ministry of National Development” with respect to serials 13-16, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Right and then there were a whole host of weapons that were issued to him between May and October, 1976, that you went through.
Lt. Col. James: From the reference, Sir, that seems to refer from serial three to serial 12, yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And then…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: The whole host is 37?
Mr. Pieters: …yes.
Mr. Chairman: Series three to…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: No, the whole host is 50. 37 are is still outstanding, sorry.
Mr. Pieters: In July, 1978 there were 50…
Mr. Chairman: No, I did not get the Witness… He said in 1976 again another large number of weapons were issued starting from series three to…
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
27
Lt. Col. James: Serial 12, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: …12, yes, thanks.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: It is actually more but is just that you, Counsel, said “a whole host”, but it is listed there. The amount issued is listed on the Exhibit SCJ 5 so I would not detain you.
Mr. Pieters: …right and in July, 1978, 50 handguns were issued. You have that in the documents as well.
Lt. Col. James: That is series 17. That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: You know that, let me suggest this to you and see if you juxtapose any of this in your investigation. Did you juxtapose any significant event whether it is in the Caribbean Region or Guyana that coincided with the issuing of those firearms?
Lt. Col. James: No, Sir, my investigations did not focus on that, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: So if I suggest to you that part of the issuance of those firearms coincided with the Grenada coup, would you agree or disagree?
Lt. Col. James: Could you repeat what you said, Sir?
Mr. Pieters: If I suggest to you or put to you that some of those firearms that were issued were issued coinciding with the coup in Grenada, would you agree or disagree?
Mr. Chairman: What year was that?
Mr. Pieters: That was in 1976, no sorry, the Cubana Air Disaster was in 1976.
Mr. Chairman: October, September… It was the first day that I entered Parliament, actually.
Lt. Col. James: Sir, I think your information is incorrect, with respect to the Grenada coup, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: What is that?
Lt. Col. James: I think that your information is incorrect, Sir.
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
28
Mr. Pieters: I know I made a mistake on the dates. The 1976 issue was with the respect to the Cubana Air Disaster; that is what I am telling you or suggesting to you.
Lt. Col. James: So your question you wish me to answer is with respect to the Cubana Air disaster…
Mr. Pieters: Yes.
Lt. Col. James: …in 1976, Sir?
Mr. Chairman: [Inaudible]
Mr. Pieters: Right. Sorry Mr. Chairman, you were saying something?
Mr. Chairman: [Inaudible]
Mr. Pieters: No.
Mr. Chairman: …so you get ahead.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Before you get ahead, if I may, Mr. Chairman, is that a question or a suggestion, Counsel?
Mr. Pieters: It is a suggestion that he can agree or disagree with.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Okay, well I do not need to speak to you about how suggestions are treated with later, in terms of calling of evidence, I just would remind you. Thank you.
10:27hrs
Mr. Pieters: Yes. Let me ask you this…
Mr. Chairman: Are you sure now that the witness is clear on what is before him? He was suggesting to you that the issuance of firearms was coinciding with certain events in the Caribbean, like the Cubana Air Disaster just off the west coast of Barbados in 1976.
Lt. Col. James: Sir, my answer would be the two events you alluded to did occur in the year 1976.
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
29
Mr. Pieters: Right and I am going to suggest to you that it is likely, in light of that terrorist event, that the Guyana Government did issue firearms…
Mr. Chairman: Counsel, just pause for a minute. Are you suggesting that what is regarded as the Grenade Coup took place in 1976, the same year as the Cubana Air Disaster off the West Coast of Barbados?
Lt. Col. James: No, Sir, I was saying…
Mr. Pieters: No…
Lt. Col. James: …that date was incorrect. The Grenada Revolution was not in 1976. You can check, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: No, that is true and that is why I took that back. I mixed up a whole bunch of dates here.
Mr. Chairman: So what year are you giving for that now?
Mr. Pieters: April 1979? I do not have that date. Let me ask you this, do you recall the Referendum in 1978?
Mr. Chairman: No, but what was the answer that the Witness gave in relation to the two events in the Caribbean that you mentioned?
Mr. Pieters: He was not aware of it. He did not give an answer.
Lt. Col. James: I agreed that the Cubana Air Disaster and the issue of the weapons in 1976 occurred during 1976; that was my answer, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: And your answer is that you could help him.
Lt. Col. James: No that it occurred in the year 1976, both events, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, but the question had to do with whether that event, namely the Cubana Air Disaster in 1976, might have been responsible for the issuance of arms here.
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
30
Lt. Col. James: My answer, Sir, was that both activities occurred in 1976. I cannot answer specifically to the question being asked by Counsel.
Mr. Pieters: You are also aware that a number of firearms were issued and that coincided with the Referendum that was held in Guyana.
Lt. Col. James: Sir, I will have to do my own research to confirm which year the referendum was held in Guyana.
Mr. Pieters: Well, it was held in 1978.
Lt. Col. James: Well, if you say so, Sir, and the Commission accepts your date as official and as a record, I would say Serial 7-17 occurred during the year of the referendum.
Mr. Chairman: No, but the fact that it occurred in the year of the Referendum, does that mean that there is any connection? I think his is asking you if you accept that there is a connection.
Lt. Col. James: I cannot make any connection just because it would have occurred during the year 1978, Sir; that is what I am trying to say.
Mr. Pieters: So as part of your investigation into the issuance of these firearms, you did not look at any significant event that occurred within Guyana or the Region that may have coincided with these issuances?
Lt. Col. James: No, Sir and if you would read the report I wrote you would see I made no such inference.
Mr. Pieters: Is there any reason why you did not try to make a nexus, a connection or a link?
Lt. Col. James: Sir, I was just seeking to establish the number of weapons which were issued by the Guyana Defense Force to external and other agencies and attempting to ascertain those that were returned.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. Let me ask you this, you would be aware that 1976 to 1980 was the height of the Cold War?
Lt. Col. James: Sir, the Cold War was even before 1976.
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
31
Mr. Pieters: Right but let us deal with that specific period of “Reaganism” and…
Mr. Chairman: Do you point to that as the high point of the Cold War? You get ahead, I do not necessarily agree with that.
Mr. Pieters: No, that is fine but there were a number of things, there was the Iran-Contra Affair, there was the NATO Block and the Warsaw Block, are you aware of that?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Are you aware at any point that there was a discussion about the Cubanisation of Guyana?
Lt. Col. James: No, Sir, I was not a member of the Military and I would not have been focused on that.
Mr. Pieters: No, but these are in records that are readily available.
Mr. Chairman: Do not quarrel with him. He says that he is not aware and I think that we have to abide by that answer. He says that he is not aware.
Mr. Pieters: Very well, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Very well, thank you.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Just for my clarification, there was a discussion, where you are asking? That is a very general question, a discussion locally, internationally, both, where?
Mr. Pieters: Well, there was a discussion in Burnham‟s speeches, not Walter Rodney but Eusi Kwayana wrote on the subject…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: So, locally then?
Mr. Pieters: Yes.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you. Your answer is still “no”, sir?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Ma'am.

Who was the Commander in Chief of the Guyana Defence Force?
Mr. Pieters: You also testify that the procedure includes permission been sought all the way up to the Defense Board which is chaired by the President.
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
23
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this particular point, at all material times was the Defense Board chaired by a President in Guyana?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir, it is in the Defense Act… Well I should not say “yes”, Sir…
Mr. Chairman: Could that be true? Only the recent…
Lt. Col. James: In our history there was not a President, there was a Prime Minister and at that time it was shared by a Prime Minister, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: …that was up until 1980.
Mr. Pieters: Let me backtrack for a second on that particular point because I think there should be some clarity on that particular issue. Was there not a President by the name of Arthur Chung until the new Constitution?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Was he not the Chair of the Defense Board at the particular point in time at which he was President?
Lt. Col. James: I would have to do that research to confirm, Sir. I cannot answer “yes” or “no”, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you that Arthur Chung was the Commander-in-Chief of the Guyana Defense Force, not the Commander-in-Chief, but the overall Commander and Head of the Defense Board at the particular point in time.
Lt. Col. James: Sir, I will have to do the research to be able to answer that question truthfully, Sir.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Could you just remind me, what is the point in time you are referring to, Counsel?
Mr. Pieters: I am referring to the point in time 1976 to 1980 until the new Constitution came into force.
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
24
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: So you are saying the Head of Defense Board was then President who was Chung?
Mr. Pieters: I am putting it to him.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Perhaps what I have here is the Act which goes up to, I think, 1977, Section Ten of which refers to the Prime Minister and then I have the amendment which was introduced in 1980, again, Section Ten of which now refers to the President as the Chairman so up to the change to the President seems to have come into being in 1980 from the copies of the Law that we have been provided with. I do not know if anything happened in between.
Mr. Pieters: I am guided by that, Mad‟m Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman: Is that the same thing as saying that 1980 is the correct date?
Mr. Pieters: I do not have the Legislation in front of me. I am guided by the stricto of the Legislation. .....

Questions on breach of procedures and confidentiality by intelligence operatives
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
32
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Pieters: Did you have an opportunity to review the evidence of Robert Gates?
Lt. Col. James: No, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this: Is there any reason why you would not have reviewed that evidence?
Lt. Col. James: I was not particularly interested in the evidence, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: He was given a particular assignment, as it were, that did not include that.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, can I still go ahead and ask him for his opinion on…
Mr. Chairman: To the extent that he did not read it and he did not review it, I do not know that he will be able to help you.
Mr. Pieters: I will ask him it in hypothetical terms but if you say move on, I will.
Mr. Chairman: Well, pose the question, it may be relevant. You get ahead.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this as a person who has been in the Intelligence Committee for over 34 years, if you are involved in…
Lt. Col. James: May I just correct you, Sir? I have not been in the Intelligence Unit for 34 years. I have also served in other units of the Guyana Defense Force during the period of time I would have been in the Guyana Defense Force, Sir, so to infer that I have been there for 34 years is not accurate.
Mr. Pieters: Okay, so you have had periods where you have left the Intelligence Sector of the Army and worked in other capacities?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. Let me ask you this, if you are in an intelligence operation would you blow your cover to someone else because that person may be a family member or a close friend?
Lt. Col. James: No, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Would you find confidential security documents lying in a dumpster, for example, in a street readily accessible to the common person to be a very strange and unusual occurrence?
Lt. Col. James: With the kind permission of the Commission, I think you are getting into a realm of security which I respectfully would not wish to address at this open forum, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: No, well I am asking you a hypothetical question because the Commission has evidence before it from a witness who says that he rummaged through a dumpster near to a particular mission and retrieved sensitive documents, so I am asking you, as a security expert, whether you would consider that in the light of shredding and in the light of other measures that are taken to ensure that security documents are properly destroyed, that that would have been an extremely unusual occurrence.
Lt. Col. James: To give you a hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question, Sir, I would find that extremely not in keeping with an Intelligence Unit.
Mr. Chairman: At the end of the day, we have to be concerned with what happened and not what ought to have happened. Every day there are departures from what ought to happen.
Mr. Pieters: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: You get ahead.
Mr. Pieters: Is it normal for undercover agents to recruit other undercover agents, including bodyguards for key political personalities?
Lt. Col. James: Sir, I did suggest just now that this particular line of questioning is getting into National Security and respectfully, with the direction of the Commission, I would wish not to answer the question.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I would ask the witness to get ahead because I do not know that his answers would be helpful to us. At the end of the day we have to make a determination as to whether or not we accept Mr. Gates‟ evidence as truthful, whether it coincided with what may be regarded as normal and usual behavior or otherwise so nothing that the witness may say will absolve us of that responsibility in relation to Mr. Gates‟ testimony, so please proceed.

Laurie Lewis
Mr. Pieters: Yes. Did you know Laurie Lewis?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Yes?
Lt. Col. James: I said “yes”, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Well, “that is correct”, I was not sure what that meant that is why I asked if it was „yes‟ you meant. How long have you known Laurie Lewis for?
Lt. Col. James: I have known him since I joined the Guyana Defense Force, in 1980.
Mr. Pieters: So, you would have known him since 1980 and how would you have viewed him as an intelligence operative?
Lt. Col. James: Again, Sir, second hand reports that he was a member of the Guyana Police Force, he was a member of the intelligence community, he was a Former Commissioner of Police.
Mr. Pieters: Right, but do you have any personal views in terms of this man‟s acuity in terms of how he acted as an intelligence operative?
Lt. Col. James: No, Sir, I never had to opportunity of working with him.

Venezuela, the "People's Army", National Defence Doctrine
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this about these weapons… Again I ask you… Are you aware that Guyana, at some particular point in time, let us say between 1978 or even 1977, faced external threats from Venezuela?
Lt. Col. James: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And …
Lt. Col. James: Just let me tell you, Sir, it is not from 1978. It is from since prior to Independence.
Mr. Pieters: Right but there was a ramping up … Sorry, was the Commissioner saying something?
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: No, I did not hear from when.
Lt. Col. James: I am saying it was prior to Independence and it still continues even as we speak.
Mr. Pieters: Right but there was a period in 1978 and going on where there was a ramping up and there was defense bonds, et cetera, being sold. Do you recall that?
Lt. Col. James: I am not certain, Sir, I can say from 1980.
Mr. Pieters: Right. Would you agree that some of those weapons may have been issued to the Ministry of Natural Development or personnel within that Ministry to meet any external threats?
Lt. Col. James: I cannot say, Sir.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Officer, in your operations and experience in the Army, what organization is usually responsible for military defense from external threats?
Lt. Col. James: Well, it is the entire military. For example, it should be the Infantry Unit, but you would have other units of the Force supporting the Infantry in their main mission, which is, responding to aggression, Ma‟am.
WALTER RODNEY COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
36
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: In your dealings in the Army has the Ministry of National Development ever been incorporated as one of the bodies, battalions or agents that deals with militarily facing these border threats?
Lt. Col. James: No, civilian organisation, Ma‟am.
10:42hrs
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: [Inaudible]
Lt. Col. James: I would say that the other supporting units –the infantry for example, is, let us say, the 5 Service Support Battalion- they had provided kits; they had provided logistic equipment, for let us say the infantry units that are deployed. You might incorporate, for example, the coast guard moving infantry troops through our riverine areas to the border. You can have the air corps doing a similar exercise from flying troops, from bases like Timehri to the border areas –Eteringbang, Mabaruma, Kaikan, etcetera, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I am just going through my questions to see if I should just close it off. Let me ask you this; the weapons that are in your report, can you say which country those weapons came from?
Lt. Col. James: That is a fair question, Sir. I cannot say with any degree of certainty where the Smith and Wessons might have originated from, because we have a number of countries that can produce Smith and Wesson pistols.
Mr. Pieters: Well let me ask you about the M70 rifles. Where would they have come from?
Lt. Col. James: Well, the M70 would have come from one of the Eastern bloc countries, because it was imported into the Guyana Defence Force during the period prior to1980, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: How about the AK47 rifles?
Lt. Col. James: Again, Sir, one of the Eastern Bloc countries. It could also have been from Russia. I cannot say definitively, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: How about the HK11?
Lt. Col. James: The HK11 is a German weapon, Sir. I would naturally assume it came from Germany, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Right. It would have come from East Germany at the particular time?
Lt. Col. James: Again, Sir, I cannot say whether it is East or West Germany at that time, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: Counsel, help me to work out relevance.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I am going down that line.
Mr. Chairman: No, but be careful to help the Commission to establish the relevance. None of us must be asking questions for asking sake. It must be interesting, but it should be relevant to the terms of reference. Otherwise, we have a mass of evidence that is not helpful.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you about these weapons. In your investigations with respect to these particular weapons, did it ever come to your knowledge that these weapons were donations not to the army but from one Government to the other, and the Army was simply holding these weapons?
Lt. Col. James: I cannot answer that, Sir. I have no information on that, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: So you would not know whether these weapons were a gift from a socialist Government to another?
Lt. Col. James: No, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: He answered that already.
Mr. Pieters: No, I appreciate that he answered that. You did not investigate asserting that? Your investigation did not need you these?
Lt. Col. James: No, Sir. ....
Mr. Pieters: If I suggest to you that the GDF was merely used as a temporary custodian because of its superior system for recording, and storage of the weapons; would you agree, or disagree?
Lt. Col. James: Sir, again, I cannot answer, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: but is that not linked to the earlier question of which he said he had no knowledge? Of gifts being held by the Army?
Mr. Pieters: Well, you will agree with this, though, that the GDF properly documented and catalogued each and every weapon, and that is why you were able to have that documentation before the Commission today?
Lt. Col. James: What I would say is that at any stage there are records relating to weapon inventory, Sir.
Mr. Jairam: But Mr. Pieters…. Mr. Pieters, even if it was a gift from one Socialist State to another, surely it would not be to equip the ordinary citizen. It would be to reinforce your armed forces. So, why would the Army simply hold them to pass it on to some external agency?
Mr. Pieters: Lt. Col. James, you heard Commissioner Jairam's question. Are you able to answer that question?
Lt. Col. James: I do not know if it was a question directed to me, Sir. I thought he was speaking to you, Sir.
[Laughter]
Lt. Col. James: But I can answer the Commissioner‟s question if it is so directed to do so.
Mr. Chairman: Please, Counsel, get ahead with questioning.
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you because Commissioner Jairam‟s question does require an answer. I am going to suggest to you that at the time what Guyana was facing, both external and internal threats, the People's Army included the citizenry as well.
Mr. Chairman: That, by the way is not…. Mr. Jairam made a comment, but if you want to ask a question, do not use Mr. Jairam‟s comment as basis for it, because you have distorted his comment.
Mr. Pieters: No, I am not distorting it. I am using it as a launch pad for questioning. Mr. Chairman, I would never distort any questions from you or any of the Commissioners.
Mr. Chairman: Let us get ahead, because you have gone well beyond the half an hour you have set yourself for, but get ahead.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I have a note of the question. It is not a question, just a suggestion; that at the time Guyana was facing external and internal threats, and the People's Army included the citizenry as well. I think that is a suggestion made to you. Is that so, Sir?
Lt. Col. James: I would have to say yes, Ma'am. The citizenry component was under the Guyana‟s People Militia, Ma'am.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: The what?
Lt. Col. James: People‟s Militia, Ma‟am.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: But was it ordinary citizens or you had to be enlisted in the People's Militia?
Lt. Col. James: It was organised reserves in communities all across Guyana.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: So, you had to be enlisted, or registered?
Lt. Col. James: You could have volunteered. It was basically volunteering.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Were you registered, or noted, or just any citizen on the road without any formality, or who is a member of the Military?
Lt. Col. James: No, Ma‟am. There was a system of documentation with respect to reserves in the Guyana‟s people Militia at that time, Ma‟am.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Pieters: You would agree as well that people within the Young Socialist Movement (YSM), the Women‟s Revolutionary Socialist Movement (WRSM), and all those other entities would have received military training as well?
Lt. Col. James: I am not certain, Sir. I cannot answer that question, Sir. I would say if there were members of the Guyana People's Militia, I would say yes.
Mr. Pieters: Those are all my questions.

****
Lt. Col. James: Sir Richard Cheltenham, Chairman, Mrs. Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, Q.C., Mr. Seenauth Jairam, Senior Counsel, distinguished Lawyers, Mr. Pieters, I think it is, I cannot remember your name Sir, [Andrew Pilgrim, Q.C.] on behalf of the Chief-of-Staff and the Guyana Defense Force, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to say thanks for having, I would say, the entire Guyana Defense Force team, Colonel West, Colonel Kyte and myself. This was a tough exercise for us as we tried to satisfy the requirements of the Commission in answering the multiplicity of questions sent. I know some of my colleagues might not have been able to produce the documents that you requested. I just want to tell the Commission that we have tried our best. It has been more than 34 years and, unlike some modern countries that keep archives or so, there would always be challenges in retrieving the written records. You did refer to the Act of God, the flood of 2005. It was an unfortunate occurrence as we had kept most of our records at ground level and I think we also learnt from that. On behalf, again, Sir, of the Chief-of-Staff and other Officers of the Guyana Defense Force, thanks very much for having me here and I wish you the best in your deliberations and future. Thank you, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: I just want to say in conclusion that I think there are important lessons for the GDF coming out of this exercise which I hope will be clearly identified and not ignored.
Lt. Col. James: Thank you very much, Sir.

GDF Colonel to head Special Organised Crime Unit, September 06, 2014, Kaieteur News

Evidence of Lt_Col_Sydney Charles James August 25, 2014
Evidence of Lt_Col_Sydney Charles James August 26, 2014
Evidence of Lt_Col_Sydney Charles James August 27, 2014
Evidence of Lt_Col_Sydney Charles James August 28, 2014

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Activist Jocelyn Elizabeth Dow evidence

"We are trying to get to the truth of this matter and every single document that exists and should exist, should be here that is what my point is." Selwyn A. Pieters

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on September 03, 2014

As a lawyer with significant experience in human rights, civil rights and non-adversarial matters, I was retained to represent its interest of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) at the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry.

On August 29, 2014, Jocelyn Dow was cross-examined by me. The focus of the examination pertained to her relationship with Dr. Rupert Roopnarine; any rush to judgment on her part; her lack of knowledge of Dr. Rodney's dealings with Gregory Smith etc.

Attorney for the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) [Mr. Selwyn Pieters]: Good Morning, Ms. Dow.
Ms. Dow: Good Morning, Mr. Pieters.
Mr. Pieters: I am Selwyn Pieters and I represent the Guyana Trades Union Congress and I have a few questions for you.

On the issue of Army Officers, their disaffection and her interaction with the Military

Starting off, let me ask you this, were you in any way connected … did you have any interaction with any GDF officers who the WPA managed to bring within its ranks or must have brought within its ranks?
Ms. Dow: I am sorry, I do not have a list of the GDF officers that the WPA had within its ranks, but I certainly knew many persons of the GDF, myself, some who were current and some who were not.
Mr. Pieters: These were persons to whom the WPA managed to have brought within its ranks as supporters or sympathisers?
Ms. Dow: I have no idea because I was not a member of the WPA and I did not know if any of them were members.
......
Mr. Pieters: Right. In respect to the GDF Officers, did you at any point receive firearm training from any of those Officers?
Ms. Dow: No.
Mr. Pieters: Were you present for any discussions with the GDF Officers where there were any discussions of acquiring firearms?
Ms. Dow: I was never present at any meeting of the WPA with GDF Officers.
Mr. Pieters: You were never present at those meetings?
Ms. Dow: I never knew of any, either.
Mr. Pieters: You mentioned a few minutes ago that you knew of former and current officers of the Guyana Defense Force and that was at the material time between 1977 and 1980?
Ms. Dow: Yes, I had many friends who were of the GDF or had been of the GDF.
Mr. Pieters: And these were persons who were associated in some way with the Working People’s Alliance?
Ms. Dow: No, not in my knowledge, they were not associated … the persons in the Army?
Mr. Pieters: Well, my question is directed to persons who would have been associated or in some way affiliated with the Working People’s Alliance.
Ms. Dow: I do not know what affiliated … I know of no one who was affiliated that worked with the GDF with the WPA.
Mr. Pieters: So, you did not know Mr. Torrington? Did you know Mr. Torrington?
Ms. Dow: I have met Torrington, yes.
Mr. Pieters: You met Mr. Torrington at the material time in question; let us say between 1977 and 1980?
Ms. Dow: I did.
Mr. Pieters: Did you know that he was a member of the Guyana Defense Force?
Ms. Dow: I did not.
Mr. Pieters: You did not? How about Lieutenant Omawale? Did you meet him at any point within that material time?
Ms. Dow: Lieutenant Omawale used to play the trumpet as far as I know at nightclubs and he was not in the GDF.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that he was in the Guyana National Service. My question is whether or not you met him.
Ms. Dow: I had certainly met him at nightclubs, Green Shrimp playing the trumpet.
Mr. Pieters: You had no discussions with Lieutenant Omawale?
Ms. Dow: Never did to this day.

Personal Relationship with Dr. Roopnarine

Mr. Pieters: Okay, well let us try to establish this so we start. I believe that you said yesterday when you provided your evidence to the Commission that you were one of the few females that had a car and could drive.
Ms. Dow: Yes, that is true.
Mr. Pieters: And that you were transporting WPA members from various meetings and various interactions?
Ms. Dow: Yes, that is true.
Mr. Pieters: And that on the night that Dr. Rodney was killed you had Dr. Roopnarine in your vehicle and you had Bonita Harris in your vehicle as well?
Ms. Dow: And Abyssinian
Mr. Pieters: Pardon me?
Ms. Dow: And Abyssinian.
....

Mr. Pieters: ....I am going to make some suggestions to you and I am going to make them right off the bat so you can accept them or reject them. You were closely aligned with Dr. Roopnarine at the material time in question.
Ms. Dow: I was.
Mr. Pieters: Were you living with Dr. Roopnarine at that period of time?
Ms. Dow: I was not.
Mr. Pieters: No? Did he frequent your home at that particular period?
Ms. Dow: He did.
Mr. Pieters: He did? Did you attend meetings with Dr. Roopnarine at that particular period of time?
Ms. Dow: I attended many WPA meetings, on the mall, on the streets … I was not a member of the WPA, so I did not attend WPA meetings, to be clear.
Mr. Pieters: So, did you attend private meetings with Dr. Roopnarine and others?
Ms. Dow: I do not know what private covers for you, Mr. Pieters.
Mr. Pieters: Well, one on one interactions between Dr. Roopnarine and let us say anyone who he was interested in speaking with?
Mr. Chairman: As vague as that?
Ms. Dow: Well, of course, I did! He would want to borrow a car and I dropped him, so I was present, that I would presume would be classified as a meeting. He might be going to the grocery store and he would be talking to the people who were selling, that could be classified as a meeting. So of course, I was in the normal flow of things. We would be all together, some of us, from time to time.
10:43hrs
Mr. Pieters: Would Dr. Roopnarine send you to do pickups for him, as well?
Ms. Dow: As a matter of fact, Dr. Roopnarine got married in my home, in 1978. [Laughter]
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: That puts pave to the other interpretation of “private meetings.”
[Laughter]
Ms. Dow: 08th March, 1978.
Mr. Chairman: I am not sure, Counsel, where you are heading, though. What is all that leading to?
Mr. Pieters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am now getting there. Did Dr. Roopnarine ask you to do pickups for him, as well?
Ms. Dow: What you mean pickup? We picked up each other all the time.
Mr. Pieters: No, but did he ask you to….
Mr. Chairman: But what do you mean by that though? Put me in the know. What is this pickup that you are talking about?

On the issue of weapons accumulation, police stop and search etc.

Mr. Hanoman: Were you ever arrested?
Ms. Dow: Many times.
Mr. Chairman: She said that many times, repeatedly yesterday.
Mr. Hanoman: You were ever told about the reason for your arrest?
Ms. Dow: As I said before, my house was searched for arms and ammunition, I would be pulled over on the road, my car would be ceased, it would be stripped down and I would be taken to Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Headquarters. I was once arrested when I was trying to leave the country, I proceeded to board the plane, but before I got to the plane, I was brought back and put under close arrest, in a bus with 28 Policemen. I was taken to CID Headquarters, my family and so on thought I had travelled, but in fact, I was locked up at CID Headquarters, where they attempted to strip search me. They locked me in a room with tools and they brought a Policewoman to search me, I was there until I was able to get word out that I was, in fact, there and Miles Fitzpatrick was my employer and he came. So, I was arrested on many occasions for many things.

....

Mr. Pieters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me make some suggestions to you; I am going to suggest to you, that you, at the material time, was aware the WPA was collecting arms, and ammunitions?
Mr. Chairman: What is the material time, 1978 to 1980?
Mr. Pieters: 1978 to 1980. Were you aware that the WPA was collecting arms and ammunition?
Ms. Dow: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you that you were one of the persons who actually picked those firearms up, on behalf of Dr. Roopnarine?
Ms. Dow: I never did.
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you that…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Mr… thank you.
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you that you transported Dr. Roopnarine to meetings with arm suppliers.
Ms. Dow: I never did, knowingly.
Mr. Pieters: And that you knew that?
Ms. Dow: I did not.
Mr. Pieters: And that your house was searched for firearms because you were on the Police radar for those very reasons.
Ms. Dow: They never found any. So, I do not know what “being on the radar” meant.
Mr. Pieters: Where did you stash them?
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Mr. Pieters…
Mr. Chairman: Give her a chance to stop. She has rejected all the premises you put her. You are even including those same rejecting premises in going forward, but you get ahead.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I thought she rejected the fact that they did not find the firearms when they searched the house. So, my next question was: Where did you hide them? Did you know where they were stored?
Mr. Chairman: But she never said that she had firearms to hide.
Mr. Pieters: No, well, she was just transporting them on behalf of the WPA.
Mr. Chairman: She did not answer that affirmatively. She never agreed to it. You are not being fair to the witness now, because you are using rejected premises as the basis of further questions.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Was there a panic or did they really enter in "high security mode"?

Mr. Pieters: Taking Andaiye’s anxiety, together with your observation, you mentioned –and I characterised it this way- she was in panic mode. You were thinking: are the Police going to arrive here, now? Are we going to be arrested? Is something going to happen to all of us because Walter is dead? Could it mean that all of us could be in danger? Or maybe not the same thing? You said that yesterday in response to a question from Mr. Hanoman. Do you recall that?
Ms. Dow: Yes.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: But not “manic mode” but “high security alert.”
Mr. Pieters: Right. So, she was in high security alert.
Ms. Dow: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you then, that you were also panicked?
Ms. Dow: I was not panicked.
Mr. Pieters: You were not panicked?
Ms. Dow: I am not easily panicked, Mr. Pieters.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that you may not be easily panicked right now; I am looking at the material time. You were not panicked then? You were very stoic and strong?
Ms. Dow: Mr. Pieters, there was the injured Donald, who was the primary concern; not my wellbeing. Our business was to get Donald to help.
Mr. Chairman: To safety.
Ms. Dow: We were accustomed to being in danger.

A rush to Judgment - conclusions even before any facts were presented to her

Mr. Pieters: That is fine. Please do not read into my questions. Mr. Hanoman asked you a question yesterday, and he said that “at that time, did you mean Walter’s killing was political?” Your answer was “Walter’s dangers were always political. Political in the sense that if you be in the State or some arm or something of the State was out to get us, that was a frequent occurrence.” That is on page 89 of the electronic version. Do you recall that evidence?
Ms. Dow: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: And you made that judgement even before you heard from Donald Rodney. You had not heard anything from Donald Rodney at the time you made that judgement.
Ms. Dow: Of course.
Mr. Pieters: Why did you rush to judgement?
Ms. Dow: I did not rush to judgement, I rushed to a conclusion.
Mr. Pieters: You were not aware of the facts as they had occurred.
Ms. Dow: Well, who else would be killing Walter Rodney? It would not occur to me that anybody else would kill him.

Gregory Smith

Mr. Pieters: Well, let me put it to you; you testified yesterday that you were not aware of whom Gregory Smith was before the event in question.
Ms. Dow: I was not.
Mr. Pieters: You had no knowledge that Walter Rodney was meeting with Gregory smith on the evening in question?
Ms. Dow: Not at all.
Mr. Pieters: You also testified that Dr. Roopnarine had no knowledge of who Gregory Smith was?
Ms. Dow: I did not testify that.
Mr. Pieters: Well, let us go to what you said so that…
Ms. Dow: I said that none of us knew who Gregory Smith was.
Mr. Pieters: I will go exactly to what you said.
Mr. Chairman: Page 88 of the Verbatim account.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: But you are asking her several questions about what she said yesterday. That is not advancing. She is only confirming that she said the same thing that she is saying now today. Do you need all those references to what she said yesterday to pose the next question?
Mr. Pieters: Yes.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Very quickly, you are correct that she did say, “we had to ask Donald what had happened. None of us knew Gregory Smith. I did not know him. Rupert did not know him” so, having established that premise, you could move on to the question.
Mr. Pieters: You also know that Mr. Eusi Kwayana who was an elder within the party, he testified here in response to a question I had asked him. He said he did not know Gregory Smith, as well.
Ms. Dow: If you say so, yes.
Mr. Chairman: She accepts that. She assumed that you are accurate in recalling what he said.
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you that despite what you said about your relationship with Dr. Walter Rodney, you did not know what Dr. Walter Rodney was up to.
Ms. Dow: I did not say I did not know what Dr. Rodney was up to.
Mr. Pieters: You had no knowledge of the relationship that Dr. Rodney had with Gregory Smith?
Ms. Dow: I said I did not know Gregory Smith, and I had never heard of him. Obviously, I did not.
....
Mr. Pieters: You mentioned today that the person who gave Dr. Walter Rodney the placebo of a Walkie-Talkie that turned out to be a bomb, did not control to that fact that Donald Rodney would have been there with him.
Ms. Dow: That is my view.
Mr. Pieters: Right. But you also, you are aware that the person who purportedly gave the package that was delivered to Dr. Walter Rodney gave that package, sorry, Gregory Smith supposedly gave that package to Donald Rodney?
Ms. Dow: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: You know that.
Ms. Dow: That is not inconsistent to what I think.
Mr. Pieters: Well, I am going to suggest to you now that if it was that no bystanders were to be present, that package would not have been given to Donald Rodney.
Ms. Dow: I do not agree with you.
...
Mr. Pieters: Two more or Mr. Chairman, you would agree you are out of the looping discussions and so were other in the collective leadership of the WPA in so far as Gregory Smith was concerned and Dr. Walter Rodney?
Ms. Dow: I could only speak for myself; I was not in the loop.
Mr. Chairman: She was not part of the collective leadership?
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate she was not, but she was tightly intertwined with the WPA.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: But her answer though, “I was not in the loop” I think we got that.

"I was not in the loop" - But her response to a question from WPA Counsel tells a different story

Mr. Ram: When did your association with the Working People’s Alliance begin?
Ms. Dow: I would say around 1977/1978, Sir.
Mr. Ram: You said you were never a member of the Working People’s Alliance.
Ms. Dow: That is true.
Mr. Ram: Would you consider yourself close to the inner circle of the Working People’s Alliance, the Executive Leadership of the Working People’s Alliance?
Ms. Dow: Yes.

Walter Rodney did not discussed acquiring walkie-talkies and testing walkie-talkies with Ms. Dow

Mr. Pieters: I think there was a discussion yesterday that I was unclear of, or unclear on reading the transcripts and so I am going to pose it to you very directly. Did Walter Rodney ever discuss with you directly a testing walkie-talkie?
Ms. Dow: No.
Mr. Pieters: Did he ever discuss with you acquiring walkie-talkies?
Ms. Dow: No.
Mr. Pieters: Did you know that prior to Dr. Walter Rodney’s death, the Special Branch created a memorandum in respect to the WPA approaching Smith to deal with electronics. Were you aware of that?
Ms. Dow: No.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Mr. Pieters, are you able to assist us by pointing to the particular memorandum in the particular Exhibit that would be helpful, if you cannot, I would not hold you back, if you cannot do it immediately.
Mr. Pieters: I will have to do that another point in time, Madame Commissioner, when I step down from questioning, I am almost to the end of my questions.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Are you able to say when this memorandum was created?
Mr. Pieters: Yes, it was created in April, 1980.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: What did you declare was the substance of that memorandum?
Mr. Pieters: The substance was that the WPA approached Smith to deal with electronics. That is the brief notes that I have in my questions.
Mr. Chairman: Approach Smith and did what?
Mr. Pieters: Excuse me?
Mr. Chairman: The WPA approached Smith and…
Mr. Pieters: To deal with electronics. I mean given what your answers were today in respect to Gregory Smith you would have to agree that you…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Sorry, I think you are talking about something at page 30? Tell me if I am correct. At SJWPA 1, I do not think I have the full designation but it is…
Mr. Pieters: Sorry, did you say…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: LJSDWPA 1, page 30. I think that is the only reference to Gregory Smith that I have seen in the three volumes from the Special Branch that we have and it is at page 30. Do you have yours there with you?
Mr. Pieters: Thank you so much, Madame Commissioner.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Do you have it with you?
Mr. Pieters: Yes.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: And it is the correct page?
Mr. Pieters: Yes, it is.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
....

Yet Commission's Counsel purporting to make Dow an expert on a subject matter on which she can only speculate

Mr. Hanoman: Thank you. Just before we took the break, I asked you a question about if you were aware that it was illegal to have a walkie-talkie or radio set without licenses. You gave me an answer, but you did not directly answer that question. Are you aware of whether it was illegal to have a walkie-talkie without a license at that time?
Ms. Dow: Well the reason I said that I do not know if it was “on the books” illegal, but if your house was searched and anything that smacked of anything to do with communications or anything would become a matter of great interest to the Police who were searching your home. They would take stuff away, sometimes stuff you would use in your business on the grounds that this was illegal, but I cannot say that it was “on the books” illegal, but it was certainly my sense that any of those communication things that they could say were interfering with Police wavebands or whatever; they would take things away from you. I had a bush operation and they would take things away from your premises.
Mr. Hanoman: In light of all that you have just said, at the time would you have considered a walkie-talkie to be a good device to conceal a bomb?
Mr. Williams: I am not sure, Sir, that Sister Dow is setting herself up and an expert in these matters.
Mr. Hanoman: I do not thing the answer calls for any expertise, please.
Mr. Williams: Why?
Mr. Chairman: Counsel, you are troubling me because thus far you have been except for the most recent question, I do not know if she is the most competent person to deal with that or whether her opinion matters, but you are asking the same questions you asked yesterday.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you wish for me not to ask the question, Sir?
Mr. Chairman: No, no what I am saying is that thus far you have asked the questions except for the most recent one you asked yesterday, already.
Mr. Hanoman: I did ask those questions before but I am seeking to get some clearer answers to the questions please, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: But has she not helped you any further. That is all. I hope you have prepared yourself in such a way so as to move forward.
Mr. Hanoman: The question that I just asked, Sir, should I withdraw the question?
Mr. Chairman: No, you leave it there. I do not know, whatever answer she gives, whether that is helpful to the Commission or not. Your job is to help the Commission in adducing, helping to get the evidence.
Mr. Hanoman: I believe it is an important issue to be raised, Sir, and I think that I can do it through this witness.
Mr. Chairman: Very well, get ahead.
Mr. Hanoman: The question that I wish to ask is: Do you think that a walkie-talkie, at that day and time, around that time, was a good device to hide a bomb in?
Mr. Pieters: Again, Mr. Chairman, Selwyn Pieters for the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), as far as we know, at least from my perusal of the evidence yesterday, this Witness was not involved in any issues in respect to walkie-talkies. She was not involved in any discussions in respect to walkie-talkie and this Witness has no particular expertise to give any evidence on that matter. Anything that she says, I do not know what use the Commission could make of it. There is no use the Commission could make of any answer this witness gives in respect to the question that my friend asked.
Mr. Chairman: I though you are only echoing and elaborating on a point that I have already made and Counsel has to ask himself at all times “Is this helpful, likely to be helpful?” She can say anything. It does not mean anything to us here. It is not anything that could help us. Suppose she answers “I think yes” or “I think no” it does not matter to us in terms of the Terms of Reference, but you get ahead.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: My only difficulty, Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, is I do not know what size this walkie-talkie was. I do not know if the witness knows. I do not knot know if walkie-talkies are a standard size. I do not know what size the electronic item or the explosive referred to as a bomb is so I do not know if the question posed in that general way can yield any helpful answer.
Mr. Chairman: It would be for the [Inaudible] who is likely to come on the next occasion to tell us all about walkie-talkies and so on. I do not know if she can help us about walkie-talkies or expressing a sensible view about it, but you get ahead, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman: Very well. It seems as though I will not ask that question.
Mr. Chairman: I do not want to inhibit you. If you think it is a helpful question, you get ahead. Perhaps when I reflect on it, I may come to the conclusion that you are correct but I do not want to inhibit your discretion so you get ahead.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you recall the question?
Ms. Dow: Do I think that the walkie-talkie…
Mr. Hanoman: Given your answer that in those days people would be arrested for walkie-talkies and so on, do you think if you wanted to hide a bomb that a walkie-talkie would have been a good device in which to do so?
Ms. Dow: Well it seemed to have been in fact.
[Laughter]
Ms. Dow: What do you want me to say?
Mr. Hanoman: Okay, Ms. Dow.
Ms. Dow: Sorry, Mr. Hanoman.

The International Commission of Jurists

Mr. Chairman: What about the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)?
Ms. Dow: No, I was not.
Mr. Hanoman: Were you ever invited to share information with the International Commission of Jurists?
Ms. Dow: No.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Before you go on, let me ask about more specifically, Ms. Dow, are you aware that the International Commission of Jurists was in Guyana in 1995 carrying out an investigation? Are you aware?
Ms. Dow: Yes, I was aware that the International Commission of Jurists was in Guyana.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: But you were never invited to participate?
Ms. Dow: No, I do not remember any details about it, not at all.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Are you aware whether it was a public inquiry such as this? Did they have public hearing? As far as you are aware, just say yes or no.
Ms. Dow: I do not recall, it certainly has not left any indelible impression on me.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I see. Are you aware of the International Commission of Jurists’ Report? Have you ever seen it?
Ms. Dow: Not that I can recall.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you very much. Thank you, Counsel.

On the issue of vindicating rights in the Courts

Mr. Pieters: Yes. Thank you. In respect to the numerous arrest and detention etcetera that you testified your experience in 1977 to 1984 and I have no doubt of your experiences. Did you ever lodge an action against the Government of Guyana seeking to redress your constitutional rights?
Ms. Dow: I think I filed on The Right to Travel.
Mr. Pieters: You did?
Ms. Dow: I think so.
Mr. Pieters: What was the disposition of that action?
Ms. Dow: That was the only right we were ever assured in the Courts of Guyana that would be defended, the Rights to Travel.
Mr. Pieters: And you learnt in action in respect to…
Ms. Dow: I am that clear, we filed things and they never went anywhere and you proceeded along so that was hazy in my mind because it was par for the course.
Mr. Pieters: Do you know what became of that action if at all?
Ms. Dow: There were instances where the rights to travel was granted, I am not sure, I had filed it, I did not have a passport, I could not travel at one time, but as you know that was par for the course to be dealt with it.
Mr. Pieters: I do not understand your answer to be quite…
Ms. Dow: In other words it was not an unusual to me and to other people so it is not as you know a matter… we knew that our lives were restricted and things would happen and you tried to keep safe and alive and function.
Mr. Pieters: Ms. Dow, this is my last question, just listen to it and answer it directly, please. You mentioned that you launched an action in respect to The Right to Travel, correct?
Ms. Dow: I said I am not sure.
Mr. Pieters: Okay, very well. Those are all my questions for this Witness.

Transcript of Evidence of Jocelyn Dow August 29, 2014,