Good Hope arms trial
Major admits army’s ‘partial’ failure to protect citizens
25-27 killed, GDF arrested three persons
Stabroek News
April 28, 2003
GDF Major Fitzroy Warde, in testimony at the trial of three men allegedly found with a cache of arms at Good Hope, has conceded that the army has partially failed to fulfill its mandate on the Lower East Coast in that civilians have been left exposed to violent crime.
Major Warde was at the time under cross-examination at the trial of Shaheed Khan, Haroon Yahya and Sean Belfield at the Sparendaam Magistrate’s Court where the matter is being heard by Principal Magistrate Jerrick Stephney.
According to the charges the three were found on December 4 in unlawful possession of a quantity of high-powered firearms and ammunition.
Belfield, a police officer attached to the Anti-Crime Task Force, is also charged individually for two summary offences, being in unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.
Under cross-examination by attorney for Belfield, Vic Puran, Major Warde stated that he had been the Officer-in-charge of the GDF Operation on the East Coast during the time of the defendants’ detention.
He said he was deployed since November 15, 2002 and his total time in command to date had been three months.
“During the army’s watch on the East Coast, by your intelligence, how many civilians lost their lives?”
Major Warde estimated the number to be between twenty-five to twenty-seven persons.
“Has the army to date been able to bring anyone to justice before December 4 for killing civilians on the East Coast?”
“Not to my knowledge.”
“You do agree with me that the army has not assisted the police, or done so on its own, to bring any person to court on a charge of killing a person from the East Coast?”
“I would have to agree with you.”
“As far as you are aware, was the army ever present when the life of a citizen was under threat on the East Coast?”
“Physically present?”
“In a position to intervene.”
“No.”
“Have you ever seen a civilian’s life under threat on the East Coast?”
“No.”
“You have never seen an act of violence perpetrated on a citizen on the East Coast during your watch?”
“No, sir.”
“How many reports have you had from ranks under your command that they have actually witnessed acts of violence against citizens on the East Coast?”
“None.”
“So no soldier, over what period...?”
“A total of three months.”
“So for three months none of the ranks have reported witnessing an act of violence?”
“No, sir.”
As he continued with his examination Puran asked Major Warde whether he knew of daily attacks of violence on East Coast citizens during his watch. To which the Major replied that there might have been reports of such incidents occurring on an average three to four times per week.
“Sir your evidence is that over a three-month period there were about 50 incidents during your entire watch?”
“Yes.”
“I wish to suggest to you that over that same three-month period there were over three hundred acts of violence.”
According to Major Warde, based on the intelligence he had gathered through newspaper reports and other available intelligence, the figure would be just around one hundred and fifty.
The Major, when asked how many perpetrators were apprehended by the army under his watch, disclosed that they numbered either three or four.
“During the same three-month period how many victims of violence have you escorted out of Buxton? One hundred, two hundred?”
“I would say all of fifty odd.”
“And the crimes you apprehended the three or four people for, were of what nature?”
“One for theft and three for grievous bodily harm.”
“You will agree with me therefore that, in effect, the army has failed to control the crime on the East Coast?”
“I will not totally agree with that. Partially.”
“You agree partially then?”
“Partially.”
“You also agree partially that the army has failed in its mandate on the East Coast?”
“Yes, yes.
“As a commanding officer you have partially failed in your mission?”
“The answer is yes. Yes, sir. Failure depending on a number of factors.”
“Now, you would agree that to the extent that the army and the police have failed, that the civilian has been left exposed?”
“Yes, sir, I would agree.”
At this point the Major, invited to say whether he subscribed to the principle of self-defence, replied in the affirmative.
Asked whether he would agree with the suggestion that perpetrators of crime on the East Coast are armed with highly sophisticated weapons, the Major said he would not.
“An AK-47 is not a highly sophisticated weapon?” Puran asked.
“No, it’s common.”
When invited to say whether he would agree with the suggestion that perpetrators of crime on the East Coast have weapons at their disposal such as AK-47s and submachine guns, he said they did.
Stating that the army operated under a principle of having a 3-1 ratio in any confrontation, Major Warde explained that when taking the offensive against a section, numbering 10 persons, the army would advance with 30 soldiers.
Asked to say if this included superiority of firepower, he said it would.
“In the capacity of a civilian, if you had to defend yourself, you would like to be in a position of superior firepower?”
“You are asking a very difficult question there...”
“If a man confronts you with an AK-47, you would like to have an AK-47 as a civilian if it were available?
“Yes.”
“Now, from your intelligence, the probability of a citizen of the East Coast being attacked by a bandit with an AK-47 is a real probability?”
“Yes, sir.”
“As far as you are aware citizens are not issued with licences to carry weapons such as AK-47s?”
“Yes, I would agree.”
“And in the reality of East Coast Army failure with a high probability of bandits, an AK-47 would become a necessity for a citizen for self-defence. You would agree?
“No.”
“He should wait and get killed?”
“I would not agree.”
“You are saying that citizens are not entitled to defend themselves with equal firepower?”
“They are entitled to defend themselves.”
“And they are entitled to defend themselves with equal firepower?”
“Yes, they would be entitled.”
Puran asked if army intelligence placed his client - Belfield - as a bandit. The Major said no.
“Actually, your intelligence puts Belfield as an honest, dedicated fighter of crime in Guyana as a policeman?”
“I would not say so. I know Belfield but I don’t know him intimately as a person, not to take anything away from him.”
“Let me put it this way, your intelligence has nothing to say that he is not an honest, dedicated, policeman?”
“I would have to agree, I don’t have any information on this.”
The hearing is to continue on May 9. (Andre Haynes)
