New River Triangle fire explosion probe…

Investigative team suggests GDF cover up

- homosexuality and self torture among ranks at the military base

Investigations by a five-man panel set up by President Bharrat Jagdeo to enquire into the circumstances leading up to a fire/explosion at Camp Jaguar, New River Triangle, have unearthed some startling revelations with the investigative team suggesting a cover up by the Guyana Defence Force.

The panel, comprising Chairman Errol Van Nooten, Senior Superintendent of Police Balram Persaud, Divisional Officer-Guyana Fire Service Marlon Gentle, Major Dyndial William of the GDF and Attorney-at-Law Priya Manickchand, confirmed earlier reports that full cooperation from the military was not forthcoming.

The investigative team pointed to non-cooperation by facilitating officers, who cited confidentiality for refusing to disclose certain information sought by the panel and earlier attempts to bar them from landing at the base to commence their probe.

Revelations of acts of homosexuality and self torture among ranks at the military base are contained in the panel's interim report, which was presented to President Bharrat Jagdeo late September.

This has led to recommendations that the GDF review the duration of its ranks at certain bases, with a view ‘towards reducing it' (behavioural problems) and introduce stricter monitoring of the actions of soldiers.

The report contains summaries of interviews with ranks stationed at the New River base at the time one of the fires occurred.

These interviews were conducted on July 29 at New River and in August at the Civil Defence Commission.

On June 25 last, a GDF private is alleged to have deliberately poured gasoline on one of his colleagues and set him afire, resulting in the destruction of a building at the Camp Jaguar facility.

The badly burnt soldier is presently undergoing treatment in the USA , while his assailant is presently before the court, charged with attempted murder.

This led to the establishment of an independent panel to examine the circumstances of the incident.

According to a source at the Civil Defence Commission, who has access to a copy of the report, the team outlined efforts by the military to frustrate the work of the panel shortly after it was established.

The source referred to a letter by head of the presidential secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon to Chief-of-staff Brigadier Edward Collins, requesting their full cooperation.

But according to the panel, flight changes and delays, unavailability of records and information were disguised strategies to stymie its work.

The integrity of one of the team's members was also reportedly questioned by the military's top brass before the commencement of the exercise.

Investigations commenced on July 29, one month after the incident, and according to the source, the report indicated that most of the statements taken from ranks at Camp Jaguar were ‘strikingly similar' - except for the testimony of one of the privates.

“The report stated that the private recounted at least two occasions when a rank was forcibly held down by three colleagues, while the lights were out. The private said that he believes that the trio's intention was to commit homosexual acts on their victim,” the source said.

According to the source, all the senior staff interviewed, including a Major and a Lieutenant, denied knowledge of the alleged incidents and they claimed they received no complaint from the affected soldier.

However, the panel felt that while there is no irrefutable evidence to prove that the affected rank did complain to his superiors, they (superiors) should have been aware of it.

The report noted that it is quite apparent from the testimonies of the ranks that there was ongoing molestation and harassment of a soldier, the source said.

The panel based its conclusion on the statement given by a Guyana Fire Service officer, who had been flown into Camp Jaguar 14 hours after the incident, to carry out initial investigations.

The fire investigator reportedly told the panel that he first heard of the unsocial behaviour shortly after his arrival at the base. He also spoke of injuries to an affected rank.

GDF officers have denied knowledge of the soldier's injuries.

“The question is how the fire officer observed the injuries to a soldier and at least three military personnel present did not,” the source said, quoting from the report.

The report questioned whether two GDF officers intentionally concealed information from the panel.

Another startling revelation is a statement that a rank stationed at the facility, inflicted deep wounds to his biceps with sharp instruments.

The soldier reportedly told his superiors that it was a ritual that he performs on his birthday and other specials days.

As a result of this behaviour, all dangerous objects, including small arms were taken away and the soldier was assigned to duties where he was not likely to come into contact with them.

Again quoting from the report, the source said, “Being aware that this soldier posed a risk to himself and others at the base, steps should have been taken to have him transferred and evaluated by competent bodies as to his suitability for military duty.”

The source went on to state that the report described as poor judgement by the GDF personnel, the decision to allow the rank to remain at the base.

The panel suggested that the GDF implement a policy where soldiers are allowed ‘sufficient time-off' during their tour of duties.

If this is not put in place, then the army should require officers to make regular unannounced visits to the quarters of the ordinary ranks, especially when the ‘lights are out'.

According to the source, the five-member panel is of the view that proper supervisory care was not taken seriously at the base which is the subject of a controversy between Guyana and Suriname .

It recommended that the GDF exercise more stringent screening processes when selecting commanders for remote areas.

Consideration should be given to the level of maturity and leadership skills exhibited by the candidate.

The report cited evidence that the fire at New River could have been avoided if the officers there had exercised better judgement, since there were warnings that something of that nature could have occurred.

The panel feels that while it was able to obtain some idea as to what led to the New River fire, all the terms of reference were not fully satisfied since it was unable to view documents as requested by Dr. Luncheon in his letter to the Chief-of-Staff.

It also cited that the delay in arriving at the base was a significant factor that affected its ability to conduct thorough and complete interviews with all of the ranks.

This includes an interview with the rank who has been charged with the offence.

Thursday 10-13-2005