Two Defence witnesses testify

TWO serving members of the Guyana Defence Force, Major Ramkarran Doodnauth and Warrant Officer (WO) Class 2 Allan White, yesterday took to the witness box to testify in support of the case against Lieutenant Colonel Tony Ross who is being court-martialed.

Ross was on Monday called upon to defend four charges, three counts in relation to ‘conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline’ contrary to Section 75 of the Defence Act Chapter 15:01, and the fourth of ‘neglect to the prejudice of good order and military discipline’, contrary to Section 75 of the Defence Act Chapter 15:01.

FOUR CHARGES
The charges were instituted against Ross on account of investigations conducted following the discovery that weapons were missing from the arms store at Base Camp Ayanganna.

The arms store was all part of the Ordnance Corps and Ross was Commanding Officer at the time the weapons went missing.

Three of the allegations against the high-ranking officer said that he, on or about February 13, 2006, without proper authority:

* * instructed Warrant Officer Class 2 (WO2) Gordon to establish an arms store for personnel of the Ordnance (Ord.) Corps, an instruction which he knew or was reasonably expected to know he had no authority to issue.

* * gave instructions to have weapon numbers assigned to soldiers of Ord. Corps for the purpose of issuing the weapons to the soldiers;

* * and failed to ensure that the keys to the keys cabinet were booked in at Defence Headquarters Operations Room, a duty which he knew or was reasonably expected to know.

The fourth accuses him of :

* * at the Ord. Corps, during the period March 2005 to February 2006, failing to manage an effective booking in/out system for the keys ledger, a duty known to him or reasonably expected to be known to him.

First in the witness box was Major Doodnauth, the Officer Commanding, Service Company 1st Infantry Battalion, who affirmed, since he declined to swear, to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”

CONDUCT SURVEY
Questioned by Defence counsel Leslie Sobers, Major Doodnauth who in April 2006 attached to the Public Relations and Education Department (PRED) of the GDF, recalled being called upon by then Colonel General Staff, Colonel Lawrence Paul, to head a team to conduct a check on the security of keys within Base Camp Ayanganna.

That survey, according to the witness, lasted one day and on conclusion, as was required, a report of the findings was submitted, complete with recommendations.

Shown a document by the Defence, the witness acknowledged it as the same report as it bore a block signature along with his signature.

But, State Counsel Melissa Yearwood-Stewart, who is conducting the case for the prosecution, entered an objection, stating that the accused was called upon to lead a defence based on his conduct and character and that the document fell outside the scope.

But Sobers countered the question of irrelevance by informing the Court that the purpose will surface in further questions to be posed to the witness.

The document was subsequently tendered as exhibit ‘E’

It was at this point that Major Doodnauth was asked by the Defence Counsel to read a specific sub-paragraph under the headline “Recommendations”, which spoke of adhering at all times to standard operating procedure (SOP).

And when asked by Sobers whether there was any reference to Commanding Officer, the witnesses replied in the negative.

He further explained that his thinking before the recommendation was made was that the Commanding Officer (CO) or Officer Commanding (OC) of the unit would have implemented proper security procedures for the booking in and out of keys, with the Adjutant or Sergeant Major acting as the enforcers.

Further questioned, Doodnauth said the “ultimate responsibility” would be that of the OC.

As for security of keys at BCA, the witness said based on the findings of the survey he headed, “many of the units or sub-units did not have proper procedure for booking in and out of keys.”

At this juncture, the Prosecution objected to the Defence’s posing of the question “Was Ordnance Corps the only department with such a problem?” and to which the witness replied “there were other sub-units”, not only Ord. Corps.

NO PROBLEM WITH KEYS
And when the question was rephrased, the witness in reply said “No sir, we did not find that Ord. Corps had a problem with the keys”.

However, under cross-examination by the Prosecution, it was put to the witness that he was not in a position to say what happened at Ord. Corps two months before the survey was conducted, to which he said he was not.

Questioned on the aspect of accountability and security of the keys as obtained in the recommendation, the witness concurred that overall the CO should ensure compliance of any order with respect to the security for keys.

WO White, the second witness in the box, now acting Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM), was in early January 2006 the officer in charge of the “ration store”, a sub-unit of Ordnance Corps.

He recalled to the Court having attended a meeting conducted by the accused on the morning of February 13 by the CO, and remembered the accused had asked the RSM, WO2 Gordon, to get up the nominal roll of soldiers and give it toWO2 Peters to assign some serial numbers of weapons alongside the soldiers’ names.”

White recalled too, the accused in his capacity as CO, had asked Peters “if there is any space in the arms store that house the ceremonial weapons, and Peters said yes.”

Continuing, he said “The CO also asked Peters if there were any rifle rack and he (Peters) said yes.”

The witness reiterated to the Court that he only heard the CO (the accused) ask Gordon to get up the nominal roll but not any specific instruction.

‘HARDWORKING, NO-NONSENSE, HONEST TRUSTWORTHY’
He further, when asked, said he had “at the time” known the CO for 18 years, and described him as a “hardworking, no-nonsense, honest and trustworthy individual who would like to have his task done as early as possible.”

Under cross-examination by Yearwood-Stewart, the witnesses admitted that the discussion about the rifle rack arose because the accused wanted to establish an arms store.

And asked to expound on his answer, he said it meant that the “unit did not have its own arms store and it was to facilitate persons (soldiers) having their personal weapons.”

The witness was also in agreement with the Prosecutor that despite his earlier description of the accused , he (Ross) could make mistakes.

“Yes, everybody is human and can make mistakes,” was his reply to the Prosecutor’s question.

Presiding over the military trial of the high-ranking GDF officer is Colonel Jullian Bruce Lovell, with other members of the panel being Lt. Col. B. Bristol, Lt. Col. Patrick West, Lt. Col. Trevor Blenman and Major Paul Arthur.

Sobers, who is a serving reservist holding the rank of Major, is associated in the defence of Ross by Lt. Col. (retired) Gregory Gaskin.

The court-martial resumes on Monday and it is likely that three witnesses will take the stand in support of Ross’ defence of the four charges.