The GAWU must express its serious concern and deep anxieties in what seems to be the security apparatus of the State being used to suppress the citizens’ freedom of expression. During a picketing exercise involving sugar workers and union officials outside the Ministry of the Presidency on December 03, 2019, members of the Guyana Police Force imposed several restrictions, which in our view, were aimed mainly at stilling the workers slogans and cries.
At the commencement of the exercise, the protestors assembled on the western side of Vlissengen Road, directly in front of the President’s office. For many years, protestors were allowed to gather there and to express their views without being intimidated or being asked to remove. However, yesterday, within minutes of our gathering up, a police vehicle arrived on the scene and several officers required us to remove from the parapet in front of the President’s office. The officers shared that it was a security precaution though we posed no threat to life, limb or property and were peacefully demonstrating. We had to wonder whether the Force responds to calls from citizens with such swiftness.
We were then forced onto the eastern side of Vlissengen Road. Our assembly there came with several restrictions. The officers demanded that we remain behind the eastern-most lane marker. As a result the protestors were confined to the rain-soaked, muddied, narrow parapet in front of the trench that runs parallel to the Castellani House. In fact, at one time, the police grabbed a worker by his shirt and threatened to arrest him had he stepped beyond the lane marker.
The restriction was imposed though it was possible for the Police to restrict traffic on one of the two lanes of the eastern carriageway of Vlissengen Road. In fact, we heard one officer suggesting this to the senior rank on the scene but this suggestion was obviously ignored. What was interesting is that a junior rank was placed in the carriageway to prevent traffic from utilizing some section of the lane but the picketers were told to remain in the muddied area. Apart from that, a contingent of police men and women took up strategic positions. At one time, a police bus brought several policemen to the scene. Later a truck carrying several metal barricades arrived, seemingly, with the intent to place further restriction.
We believe that the intention of the restriction was intended to minimize the visibility of the workers protest. Obviously, the protest must have been seen as an embarrassment to some and must have gotten under the not-so-thick skin of some in power. Their reaction, we believe, was manifested through the security forces. The officers on the scene indicated that their actions were intended to maintain the flow of traffic, a situation, as we pointed out, could have been addressed without much disruption. We must say we take the officers’ explanation with a pinch of salt. Certainly if the police is so concerned about traffic, then the large blockades we see being erected whenever the President is present at venues would have not been erected in the first place. Those blockages, we remind, sometimes extend into several streets and apart from a major inconvenience, are severely disruptive.
The situation has caused our Union to wonder whether we are now in a Police State where the rights and freedoms of citizens will be disregarded and the security apparatus will be used to quell dissenting voices and actions.
