The Court of Appeal yesterday set aside the 1982 conviction and sentencing of Donald Rodney for unlawful possession of explosives stemming from the bomb blast that killed his brother, political activist and historian Dr Walter Rodney.
The Appeal Court ruled that Rodney’s constitutional rights were breached given the almost 40 years the appeal took to be heard.
Director of Public Prosecutions Shalimar Ali-Hack SC conceded to the fact that the case had spent an unduly long time within the criminal justice system, thereby breaching Rodney’s constitutional rights. In a brief statement following the ruling, Ali-Hack said the decision by the court is in keeping with the law.
“It is long overdue and I am obviously relieved and pleased that I have reached the stage where there is no longer a conviction against me,” Rodney told Stabroek News following the decision.
Rodney also pointed out that the case concerned much more than the conviction as his statements in his defence at trial had been removed from the records of the court, which were falsified to reflect an admission of guilt.
Now with the conviction set aside, Rodney said he could go back to being an ordinary citizen and no longer a convict.
He had previously been admitted to practice law in Trinidad and Tobago but was unable to do so here owing to the conviction. As a result of Tuesday’s decision, he said he would be taking steps to be admitted to practice here.
Rodney, who was present on June 13, 1980 when his brother was killed after a walkie-talkie given to him exploded, was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for the explosives-possession charge.
The then ruling People’s National Congress (PNC) party has been accused of orchestrating his death but has repeatedly denied any involvement. Dr. Rodney had actively opposed the PNC and had held mass public meetings which ended in invasions by security units and other groups.
On March 26, acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud commenced hearing of the almost 40-year-old appeal.
Rodney appealed on the grounds that all he had said in his defence prior to being convicted was removed from the court’s records, inclusive of what he had said were statements he gave to police, though such information had been widely circulated nationally and internationally.
He argued, too, that extraneous and inadmissible statements had been placed in his court records, and that the prosecution had established no case for him to answer.
Sanjeev Datadin, attorney for Donald Rodney, yesterday told Stabroek News he was elated at the decision of the court and “to correct one of the most egregious wrongs of our judicial system.”
Datadin said during the hearings he argued at the very basic level the state had failed to prove that his client was even in possession of an explosive device, let alone to find that it was unlawful.
Assuming but not admitting that his client was in possession of any explosive, which he made clear was not the case, Datadin reasoned that the state called absolutely no witness who testified that Rodney was “unlawfully” in possession of the purported explosive.
In her address to the court, Ali-Hack agreed with Datadin that no evidence had been led that the walkie-talkie at the centre of the case was an explosive or any of its components.
She agreed that there was no evidence on record of any expert witness ever performing such an analysis to so determine. However, her clear contention had been that the charge was validly instituted against Rodney.
Produce evidence
Datadin said that since being in possession of explosives was not in itself unlawful, it was important for the state to produce evidence that his client’s purported possession was unlawful.
The lawyer stressed that while there existed evidence of “an explosion,” there was no evidence of “an explosive,” for which he contends a distinction must be made, even as he advanced that a vehicle in itself could explode without anyone activating a trigger of any kind, especially where there may be some inherent fault with the automobile, such as a manufacturer’s fault.
Datadin told the appellate court that the prosecution failed to prove the very basic elements of the offence, for which his client should not have been made to answer.
“There was no evidence upon which the court could find that there was knowledge and control” on the part of his client, Datadin also argued.
Datadin told the court that the trial that was conducted adduced “absolutely no evidence that can found a charge much less a conviction”.
The lawyer also complained to the appellate court of evidence suppression, for which he said the state is responsible, while alleging that the record of appeal was “adjusted/ fixed” against his client. He also took issue with the length of time the appeal had taken to be heard as he noted that this was a breach of his client’s fundamental right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as provided for in Article 144 of the Constitution.
At a 2019 hearing, Rodney had communicated his frustration to the appellate court over the sloth of the hearing of his appeal, which had been filed since 1982 within the specified period following his conviction.
He had been granted bail pending his appeal of that conviction. Sometime following that, however, and while he was out of the jurisdiction in “political asylum,” Rodney said he would then learn that an appeal was also filed to the Full Court of the High Court, which dismissed his appeal.
At the hearing two years ago, Rodney had said that he at no time filed his appeal before the Full Court and was never aware of such an action being filed, until it was brought to his attention a long time after.
Both the court and state counsel Dionne McCammon had agreed with Rodney’s submissions that in accordance with law, the Full Court division of the High Court would not have had the jurisdiction to entertain his appeal in the first place, more so to pronounce on it.
The Court of Appeal at that time set aside the Full Court’s ruling and had said that it would fix a date to hear Rodney’s appeal, which it commenced on March 26.
Law enforcement officials up to the highest level of the Guyana Police Force distorted and hid evidence related to Dr. Rodney’s death, according to the report of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) that investigated his death.
The CoI had been set up in 2014 by then President Donald Ramotar to determine as far as possible who or what was responsible for the fatal explosion. The CoI had concluded that Rodney was the victim of a state-organised assassination and that this could only have been possible with the knowledge of then PNC Prime Minister Forbes Burnham.
