Dear Editor,
An intolerance of criticism, an obsession with silence and the sanctioning of those who voice criticism are the undoubted proclivities of the authoritarian. I have been a consistent critic of this administration with special emphasis on the Attorney-General, whose performance I have the parliamentary responsibility to scrutinize. In so doing, though sometimes harsh, I have endeavoured to be both constructive and solution-oriented. Not surprisingly, the Attorney-General has retaliated. He first attempted to manufacture a scandal in respect of some law books, the details of which I had explained to him a year before and to which he voiced no objection at the time. Subsequently, the Attorney-General informed me that if I continue to publicly criticize him, he will make the law books a public issue. Of course, I told him to proceed. I will never allow anyone to hold me to ransom or to buy my silence. As promised, he instructed the Auditor General to launch a special investigation into those books. The report of the Auditor General did not fault the arrangement by which those books were acquired, and the matter never generated the public traction which the Attorney General expected. In the meanwhile, my criticisms and scrutiny continued.
Last week the Attorney-General announced, publicly, that after the parliamentary recess, I will be “a prime target” for the government to take to the Privileges Committee. This constitutes another attempt to silence me. My sin according to the AG, is that I “lied” to the National Assembly when I said during the debate of the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry Report, that President Ramotar met with the Rodney family in the USA and that Dr Patricia Rodney requested that the PNC and the WPA must not to be consulted in the establishment of the Commission. The learned Attorney-General omitted to say how those assertions are false, or what aspects of them are false. I know that he was not present at the meeting between President Ramotar and the Rodney family in the USA. I also know that it is impossible for him to have knowledge of the content of the numerous phone conversations between President Ramotar and the Rodney family and the Rodney family and I. So quite frankly, I am absolutely befuddled at how he knows of the content of those discussions in order to form the opinion that the statements which I made were untrue. Of course I am trying to make logical deductions.
Since the Attorney-General has made this an issue, I will capitalize upon the opportunity to reiterate the facts which pertained to the establishment of this historic commission. I believe that they should be stated for the public record.
I begin by acknowledging that it was a privilege for me to have been afforded an opportunity to play a part in the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry into the death of Dr Walter Rodney, whose scholarship, political activism and revolutionary philosophy, I admired greatly since my formative years. Adulthood and maturity have graduated that admiration into veneration. So when the occasion presented itself to play a part in the establishment of this commission, I was more than elated to do so. President Ramotar was kind enough to delegate to Dr Roger Luncheon and I, the responsibility of establishing this momentous commission. Due to her state of health and age, Dr Rodney delegated her daughter, Asha Rodney, the responsibility of interacting with the government on this matter. As a result, it is Asha, on behalf of the Rodney family, with whom I frequently liaised, both by telephone and email, during the preparatory stages of this commission.
From the inception, the Rodney family laid down certain non-negotiable conditions:
- that the terms of reference must confer upon the commissioners sufficient latitude and scope to pursue the truth;
- that these terms of reference must meet the approval of the Rodney family before they are published;
- that the persons who will serve as commissioners must be of international standing;
- that the PNC and WPA must play no part in the establishment of this commission.
President Ramotar agreed to these conditionalities. The terms of reference were crafted and the commissioners selected in adherence to the same. In my presentation in the National Assembly, I attempted to recollect these vital facts so that they can be archived in the Hansard for future generations. It was neither my intention nor did I have any reason to mislead.
The truth of the matter is no rational mind with a familiarity of the politics of the day would have been in doubt that the PNC administration, or at least at a minimum, leading persons in that administration, played a significant role in the death Dr Walter Rodney. Both anecdotal and real evidence pointed overwhelmingly in that direction. In my speech in the National Assembly, I referred to a march held on the day of Dr Rodney’s funeral, from Buxton to Georgetown along the East Coast Public Road. That march was organized by the WPA and led by Dr Rupert Roopnaraine, Professor Clive Thomas, et al. The thunderous chant of that march was the question “Who killed Rodney?”, followed by the equally thunderous response: “Burnham killed Rodney”. I am not being threatened about being taken to the Privileges Committee for this recitation. I presume it is because it is the truth. The strong belief that the then government was implicated in Dr Rodney’s death was not confined to Guyana, but enjoyed international popularity. In my speech, I recounted a conversation which I had, approximately fifteen years ago with a senior Minister of the current government who had recently returned from a trip to Africa. He told me that “Africa will never forgive the PNC for what they did to Rodney.” That statement will remain forever etched in my memory.
Therefore, and expectedly, the PNC would never be comfortable with and would always be critical of any thorough and competent Commission of Inquiry into Dr Rodney’s death. The findings would, naturally, be damaging to them. As a result, the APNU was critical of every component of the commission: the terms of reference; the commissioners; the evidence, the witnesses and the findings. In the same vein, it was easy to predict and expect that the Rodney family would find the PNC participation in the establishment of such a commission, objectionable. They did. Likewise, a similar posture was adopted in relation to the WPA, which by that time, had already entered into the political bed of the PNC.
What I have written here and what I have said in the National Assembly that night, is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is exactly what I will recite before any Privileges Committee to which I may be summoned. Only Mrs Rodney’s word in my presence before that committee can contradict me. Even if she does, it does not mean that what I said is untrue. I will produce emails and other pieces of evidence to vindicate my assertions. I wish the Attorney-General well in securing Mrs Rodney’s presence and getting her to contradict me in that committee. Needlessly to say, that the Attorney-General is hereby assured that I will not be silenced by threats and intimidation. I am made of sterner stuff. I will continue to discharge my responsibility to the people of this country without fear or favour.
It is amazing that thirty-six years after his death, Dr Walter Rodney can still evoke the wrath of the authoritarian. Without more, it speaks to the measure of the man. He was only thirty-eight years old. Imagine if he had been allowed a full life.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP
