The Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry (CoI) strengthens the case for further probes including of the under-investigated killing spree allegedly masterminded by elements of the security forces and in the ruling political directorate in the last two decades, the WPA has said.
In a statement yesterday, the party made several observations relating to the CoI report but said that it would refrain at this point from commenting on the findings until it has the opportunity and time to read and digest the report. However, it said, flowing from the inquiry, further action could be taken.
“For a new administration that could bear no responsibility for the state terror of that period nor for the unexplained and under-investigated killing spree allegedly masterminded by elements of the security forces and in the ruling political directorate in the last two decades, the inquiry fortifies the moral base for intensified investigations and/or another inquiry,” the party said.
Earlier this week, President David Granger said the parties making up the APNU+AFC coalition government were expected to present their views on the Walter Rodney CoI report yesterday. The president’s statement came days after the Alliance for Change (AFC), which is a member of the coalition government, called for the report to be released to Rodney’s family and stated that it also supports its early release to the public.
A key finding of the CoI was that there was a conspiracy involving the Guyana Defence Force (GDF), the Guyana Police Force and others to kill Rodney and the then leader of the PNC, President Forbes Burnham had to be aware of it. Granger, who is now leader of the PNC’s successor, the PNCR, has denounced the report and its findings. Rodney was the leader of the WPA when he was killed.
Victory
Yesterday, the WPA said the determined struggle which yielded the setting up of an inquiry into the circumstances of Rodney’s death on June 13, 1980, the completion and tendering of the report to the President and the imminent official release to the public of the report, is a victory.
It said the antecedent factors to the controversial birth of the inquiry and the preparatory facilities and efficiency of the administrative secretariat, methodology, law and procedure applied by the Commissioners during the hearing, and the validity of the findings of the Commission will now all be a matter for individual judgement of those who would read the report.
“In the final analysis the inquiry’s efforts and consequences are in the hands of the ultimate arbiters, the citizens,” the statement said.
It noted that Granger has registered “Presidential disaffirmation” of the report and said this appears to have occurred without prior consultation with his coalition partners. “It remains to be seen whether on further consideration he will modify his severely critical position or even it remains immutable, he may help to create an environment accommodating differences so that we can rescue something positive out of it,” the WPA said. The WPA is a member of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) which is headed by Granger and which is the senior partner in the governing APNU+AFC coalition.
The WPA stated that Guyanese quite familiar with law and court procedures will understand easily the issues raised, of fairness, bias, the ill-disguised intent to make the Commission an instrument of political manipulation and deterrent to incipient efforts to forge an opposition alliance for national unity, the criteria applied by the Commissioners in admitting evidence, their interpretation of evidence and, the standard of proof applied.
It noted that during the inquiry the Commissioners made clear that hearsay evidence was admissible, circumstantial evidence can be relied on and the standard of proof is on the basis of “balance of probabilities.”
In this light, the WPA emphasised that an inquiry even though it takes on the characteristic of a judicial process is not a criminal or civil hearing in which accused and litigant appear for a determination of guilt or civil remedy. It noted that in a criminal trial the standard of proof to be met is “beyond reasonable doubt” and “we would think that if the Commissioners were required to apply this test to the evidence before them their findings could very well be different.”
Flexible
However, the statement said, because this was an inquiry, the Commissioners were justifiably tolerant and flexible. It noted that they were dealing with momentous social and political events spanning a period of great upheaval, instability, conflict and tension and involving many actors.
“Application of strict rules of a trial court would simply suffocate the process. The test of probability is a commonsense test, of coming to a conclusion, what, from all the circumstances, is most likely,” the statement said.
“When we read the report and see the evidence we too can try to arrive at our own commonsense conclusion. We would also have to see if the Commissioners did it the right way and were consistent in applying the tools to the consideration of the evidence,” the WPA observed.
It pointed to the role of the attorneys in the inquiry, saying that they bore the responsibility in examination and cross-examination of witnesses to help the Commissioners to determine the veracity and credibility of witnesses, bearing in mind that a witness who is not challenged or weakly challenged, or the failure to advance evidence refuting statements and evidence given by witnesses or supporting their interpretation of the events, could have telling consequences.
“There is no evidence that during the hearings that the lawyers’ rights were in any way abridged,” the WPA said.
It also pointed out that the inquiry could not gather all the facts and could not include all the first hand experiences of those who lived through the period under review. “The inquiry is also vitiated to the extent that the protracted delay from the period and events under review to the first day of hearing would make recollection of important events dim and many witnesses could for any number of reasons not have been available for the hearings. We will have to consider too that the Commission barely survived a persistent effort to abort the hearings and in the end important witnesses were not heard or did not complete their evidence,” the WPA said while adding that the Commissioners bear no responsibility for this. After it came to power in May last year, the APNU+AFC government closed off the hearings before all witnesses could be heard and Granger himself had expressed irritation at the length of time that was being taken.
Repression
According to the statement, associates of the WPA have all witnessed at least some if not all the events to which they can swear or affirm. Victims can be found among all sections, classes and races of Guyana, it said.
“For us, centrally located in the circumstances of pervasive repression we experienced in that period, have been repeated violations of the right to human life culminating in the assassination of Walter Rodney. The failure to take action to bring those responsible to justice in a court of law by the agencies of law led to this inquiry. And to the lasting ignominy of the powers that be an attempt was made to blame the killing of Walter Rodney on his brother, Donald Rodney, while the principal suspect, Gregory Smith, against whom there was direct evidence of involvement, was afforded state resources to flee the jurisdiction, protection and immunity,” the statement declared.
“Apart from the intrinsic merit of the process, the Commission would have accomplished something valuable for us as a nation if that is where the report leads us,” it said while adding that the Commissioners Sir Richard Cheltenham, Queen’s Counsel of Barbados, Senior Counsel Seenath Jairam of Trinidad and Tobago and Queen’s Counsel Jacqueline Samuels-Browne of Jamaica and all those who contributed to the inquiry deserve our gratitude.
From the inception of the launching of the inquiry by the former PPP/C government, the WPA had been in an awkward position as it was then in an alliance with the PNCR in APNU. The WPA has maintained over decades that the PNC government had been responsible for the assassination of Rodney. With the release of the report earlier this year and its findings against the PNC, the WPA remains in a delicate position as its top two leaders have senior positions in the APNU+AFC administration. WPA co-leader Dr Rupert Roopnaraine is the Minister of Education while another co-leader Dr Clive Thomas is the head of the State Assets Recovery Unit (SARU). Several other senior WPA members are also employed by SARU.
