ANSWERS NEEDED

Promoters of Carnival fetes are required by law to hire a certain number of guards at these functions, both to maintain order and provide a needed sense of security. The need to take ample preventive measures is understandable, particularly because of the consumption of alcohol offered for sale, the likelihood that some patrons may over indulge, along with the possibility of pickpockets and armed bandits attending some of the popular public fetes, where there is unrestricted entry.

But does the law permit the security guards, (often moonlighting off-duty policemen) to carry guns, bearing in mind that these fetes are likely to be crowded? In addition, are these officers specially trained for occasions such as crowd control and the restrained use of guns in situations in which persons, including innocent bystanders, can be shot and seriouly injured or killed? We are all shocked at the loss of the young life of Kevin Cato at Pier 1 on Saturday at a privately sponsored Carnival party. We do not have all the details other than that there was an altercation between a plainclothes policeman and two young men in a crowd said to be 8,000 strong which ended in the death of Cato. What is puzzling, however, is that the policeman who is alleged to have shot and killed Cato at the crowded fete had a drink in his hand and a gun in his pocket. Off-duty policemen, we understand, are permitted to moonlight at Carnival fetes or any other public functions. But are they allowed to carry guns, and if so whose guns — theirs or those belonging to the police service? We understand that frequently policemen go off-duty with service guns, or they may sign off with these guns on the pretext that they are going “on exercises”.

What is stranger still is that the policeman, who reportedly shot the youth, allegedly left the function and went home, and that a senior Police officer, Supt Errol Denoon, who had been assigned to investigate the incident had been unable to locate him on Sunday. In addition, his family is reported to have told investigators that he was traumatised and would have been available yesterday. Would any ordinary member of the public involved in such an incident have received such kid glove treatment? This is wholly unacceptable. Why did the Police officers on official duty not request him to accompany them to the nearest Police Station for investigation? It is absolute nonsense. Another person, who was not an officer, but a civilian, would have been held and taken to the Station for questioning. Why this tacit preferential treatment? But apart from the special treatment which reportedly was received by the officer concerned, why did he as an officer of the law not offer to accompany his fellow Policemen to the Station?

There have been too many cases over a number of years in which Policemen have been accorded preferential treatment by fellow officers — treatment not accorded to civilians. We wish to make clear that we are in no way stating that he is guilty of an offence. What happened on Sunday morning, however, demands a thorough investigation. A young man has been shot and killed and we and so many others are concerned at the clearly indifferent handling of a very serious affair. And on this matter we draw attention to the case of the Blanchisseuse hunter, Christopher Kanhai who was shot dead by police two weeks ago and about which nothing has been heard. Rumour has it that a relative of a policeman was involved. Mr Commissioner of Police, how long must be wait before we can expect to see justice done in these cases?