-were not contacted about complaints
University of Guyana student Ganesh Mahipaul says he and other students who accused lecturer Evan Radhay Persaud of victimisation were not approached by the committee set up to probe the complaints and he referred to its findings as “compromised.”
Mahipaul said that he had sustained the fight against Persaud but admitted yesterday that many of the other students were not more visible because of attachments off the university campus. He stressed that the committee failed to do its work and approach the complainants, and as a result he rejected the findings.
Stabroek News attempted to contact Persaud yesterday but was unsuccessful.
The committee, which submitted its findings to the university’s council on Thursday, has cleared Persaud of the allegations that were leveled against him saying that it found a lack of evidence to substantiate the claims.
Stabroek News was told that the University’s Council did not reject the findings during a meeting on Thursday and that while questions were raised the Council accepted the findings pending a verification of the report prepared. The Council has reportedly said it needs to seek a legal opinion on the matter because it is a technical one. Registrar Vincent Alexander, when contacted yesterday, said he would not comment, saying only that a report carried in this newspaper contained inaccuracies.
But based on the findings of the committee, Persaud is to be re-instated as a lecturer with a stern warning and he is to be supervised when he resumes duty. Previously, he was suspended after the university had conducted its own probe and had concluded there was sufficient evidence against him to set up an independent committee and conduct a wider investigation.
Lecturer Freddie Kissoon, the representative of the University of Guyana Worker’s Union on the Council, yesterday said that the union is not surprised by the findings because “a conflict of interest existed.” Kissoon said at least one council member had openly objected to the appointment of two persons to the committee who are political associates of Persaud, but according to him the objection was ignored. He said the union views the report as “flawed.”
Kissoon said too that the committee had revealed that the university was not forthcoming with certain information as it related to the investigation, adding that some materials were requested by Persaud but that it was never produced. He said also that the committee was not clear in terms of how it was to function and he faulted the University for this, saying it ought to have provided the committee with the framework that it was crying out for. Kissoon pointed out that the report basically concluded that Persaud would not face dismissal and that he would also not be disciplined; only providing “avenues through which he can be spoken to.” He added that the finding of the report does not alter the status of Persaud as a lecturer.
Meanwhile, Mahipaul insists that Persaud should not be reinstated as a lecturer. He said the conduct of the lecturer is widely known, adding, “I would never back down from speaking out on this man.” Mahipaul said the committee was wrong not to have approached any of the students at the center of the claims.
