Dear Editor,
I refer to Dr Nanda Gopaul’s letter of February 17 (SN ‘Josh Ramsammy had the support of leading government officials…’) as a response to my interpretation as to why Dr Josh Ramsammy was relieved of his post of Pro-Chancellor at the University of Guyana in 2000. It is an absorbing explanation that leads the reader into a labyrinth of mystery and a minefield of intrigue. Let us delineate the areas of opaqueness in Dr Gopaul’s letter. First, he explained that Dr Ramsammy had to be relieved of his position in order to bring “peace and comfort to the university.” This can easily be analysed to mean that “peace and comfort” would have been unachievable if Dr Ramsammy had remained as Pro-Chancellor. Dr Gopaul needs to describe the peculiarities or specificities if his rejection of my assessment can hold water.
I repeat for readers that my contention is that President Jagdeo fired Dr Ramsammy because the Pro-Chancellor was not playing games with party politics and that his administrative style led him into confrontation with executives in the UG boardroom that did not meet with the President’s expectations of Dr Ramsammy. Secondly, Dr Gopaul asserts in his letter that during Dr Ramsammy’s tenure, he had the support of “the government representatives on the Council.” Well then how can the Pro-Chancellor be fired if he has the support of the government of the day? That is easy to answer; if the Council votes to reject the Pro-Chancellor. But that didn’t happen. Dr Gopaul left readers with the impression that it was the then Minister of Education who removed Dr Ramsammy. That is not possible.
The Minister of Education cannot remove the UG Pro-Chancellor if no request has been made. Could Dr Gopaul describe the facts that led to such a request if indeed there was one? Thirdly, assuming that the then Minister did that, what was the reaction of the government representatives on the Council, the ruling party that makes policies for the country, the Cabinet and the President. How can Dr Gopaul elevate Dr Ramsammy to the position of a national hero as he did in the letter in question yet in the same breath suggests that the Minister chose to dismiss Dr Ramsammy even though the man had the support of the government? This I honestly find confusing.
Readers’ confusion increases when Dr Gopaul admits that in the centre of the confrontation with the Pro-Chancellor in his last year at UG, were two executives who perhaps should have been fired. Dr Gopaul cannot see (I hope he does after reading my missive here) that if these men should have been fired but were not and it was the Pro-Chancellor that was dismissed then some huge dilemmas face Dr Gopaul. Why were these executives not fired? Who retained them? The Minister of Education? The Council of the University? The President. We reach a paradox here. On the one hand you have a national hero that Dr Gopaul truly admires. He is doing good for the university but is then dismissed. Others who do not have the university’s interests at heart were wrong to the Pro-Chancellor but they remained. Who then runs Guyana and how in natural law can the head of an organisation be kicked out and the mischievous ones remain?
Dr Gopaul answers all my questions with statements that clearly imply it was Minister Dale Bisnauth who acted against Dr Ramsammy. Would any Minister act so contrary to natural justice without even discussing the controversy and ticklish situation with the President and/or the Council of the university? I called Dr Bisnauth and he was harsh on Dr Gopaul. He asserted that he had nothing to do with the removal of Dr Ramsammmy in his capacity as Minister of Education. Over to you Dr Gopaul.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
