Dear Editor
IN the November 16, 2019, issue of the ‘Stabroek News,’ Mr Kwayana made some remarks pertaining to the Rodney commission’s work that needs a response.
He was critical of me for not seeking to have a consensus with the PNC/APNU and WPA as to the ‘Terms of Reference’ of the commission. I felt then, and still do now, that if I had sought the consensus, the commission would have never gotten off the ground. Not only did I not consult the APNU and WPA, but I did not raise this matter with the PPP either. I took that decision to work with the family who suffered long and the most by the tragedy of 1980.

The Terms of Reference (ToR) were worked out between the Attorney General, then Mr Anil Nandlall and the Rodney family. The term ‘Intellectual Author’ that Mr Kwayana commented on cynically, in the ToR if copied from Fidel Castro as Mr Kwayana noted, is not important; most important was that Walter Rodney’s family agreed with it and it captured an important aspect of the investigation.

I should point out that to the best of my knowledge it was the first time that the family was directly involved in the process.  All previous attempts to establish such a commission, the WPA said it was representing the family. In speaking to the family, I found out that no member of the family ever asked that an inquiry not be held as was told to President Jagdeo by Dr Roopnaraine when he was about to establish such a commission in 2005. In speaking to the family, I found out that none of them ever asked that no inquiry be held in 2005, as was told to them by President Jagdeo who was ready to set up such a Commission, by Dr Roopnaraine.

I wish, also, to say that when myself and Mrs Rodney spoke of the matter, I was not seeking any political gains, contrary to Mr Kwayana’s belief. Uppermost in my mind was her request to bring the issue to closure. Indeed, in the process of our conversation, I said to Mrs Rodney that I wanted her to go into the inquiry with her eyes wide open. I asked her if she was aware that many of her late husband’s closest comrades had migrated into the PNC and may not be willing to fully cooperate. She said she was aware, but still wanted to proceed.

I, too, who lived through that period was anxious to have this done. The only reason that I did not initiate it immediately on taking office was because of my mistaken belief that the family did not want it.

So, Mr Kwayana, that is simply the fact. The other issue I want to clarify is the question of Donald Rodney’s charges. When this matter was raised with me, I immediately agreed to wipe out the charge. However, the attorney general at the time told me that Donald Rodney was charged and convicted in his absence. Therefore, I could not just wipe out those charges.

He recommended that the next best way available to me was to pardon Donald Rodney and that is what I did. I understand that the family is not happy with that; I understand their feelings on this matter, but that was the advice I got and I acted in accordance with that advice. Mr Kwayana also said that “….. notably absent from the ToR was any reference, direct or indirect, to redress for the losses imposed on the Rodney family with its very young children…”  He is right.

However, he went on to say that “….the consideration of redress would not be absent from the President’s mind.” He is wrong here. This matter was never raised with me until late in the inquiry, that is, sometime in 2015. My attitude then was to let the inquiry conclude and we would deal with it immediately after; I am of the view that the family should be compensated. The report, even though truncated, has justified that. Mr Kwayana then joined with his colleagues in the WPA to excuse the PNC for terminating the inquiry immediately after taking power. He wrote; “…. President Granger …. new to the political arena, was in a difficult situation…. The party he led apparently began to press for the immediate closure of the inquiry…”.  This, of course, is sheer speculation.

Regards
Donald Ramotar
Former President