ONE of the most attractive emanations from a High Court judge in the history of jurisprudence in Guyana came in 2020 when acting Chief Justice, Roxanne George ruled that Chief Election Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield cannot be a lone ranger; he must take instructions from the GECOM Chair and The GECOM Commission.

The CJ’s statement became an instant repetition in journalism because it was a fitting way to describe how the CEO behaved – he simply had no one to answer to. The meaning of someone being a lone ranger is that the person acts alone thus has no one to account to.

After investigation, this column asks the question whether there is a lone ranger in Guyana’s journalism and is that person based in the Stabroek News? Here now is information about the possible lone ranger in Guyana’s journalism.
Professor Randolph Persaud, presidential adviser on constitutional affairs sent me a statement with his permission to use. I quote: “Stabroek News has not been publishing my letters. It appears to be a matter of policy. I sent letters on June 1 right up to June 17, none was published….”

I rang the professor to enquire about his state of mind. He said that he has been singled out because since May his letters have not been printed while others write as often as daily and three times a week. This has become distasteful in that a letter by Mr. Hamilton Green that mentioned his name was taken out in SN while his name was retained in the same publication by the Kaieteur News

Dr. Persaud felt that editor, Anand Persaud, is pursuing a vendetta against him because he complained to this columnist a few months back that, in a conversation with Mr. Persaud, he was informed of the reason why his letters weren’t being carried, and the explanation involved his criticisms of civil society groups.

I did a piece on that episode and quoted iconic Guyanese, Ian McDonald as saying he does not agree with that approach by SN. On Monday, I did my investigation as required by the principles of journalism. What I found out was so shocking that journalism may have reached its lowest point in Guyana. I will wait to see what the believers in free speech have to say.

I rang Mr. Persaud. He said; “no comment” when I read out the complaint of Dr. Persaud. Dr. Persaud has an impressive curriculum vitae. He was at the American University, one of the United States’ most highly rated universities. I requested a copy of the members of the board of directors from Mr. Persaud but he refused. He said I should research it.

I spoke to board member, Timothy Jonas, who is the general-secretary of the opposition party, ANUG. He told me he can only recall three board members apart from himself – the children of SN founder, David DeCaires, Isabelle and Brendan and Anand Persaud himself. Mr. Jonas said as a board member he cannot comment on the paper ostracising the professor since the board does not deal with the journalistic dimensions of the newspaper.

I asked Mr. Jonas to take off his board member’s hat and put on the politician’s hat of ANUG. He insisted that he cannot react to Dr. Persaud’s complaint because the board cannot comment on SN’s journalism. Last year, majority shareholder, Isabelle DeCaires informed me, through a letter in the press, that, as a shareholder, she cannot intervene with the editor’s direction.

I spoke to president of the Guyanese Press Association, (GPA) Nazima Raghubir. She indicated that she cannot speak to me on the issue because she is not the GPA, that I must contact the GPA with my complaint.
As in the case of Jonas, I asked again for Raghubir to give me a comment as the president. But she insisted she is not the GPA, I must interface with the GPA.

To sum this up, Raghubir refuses a response to a grave danger of denial of free speech by SN involving one of the advisers to the president. The editor refuses to offer a comment too. Jonas cannot give his perspective on what SN’s editor has done to Dr. Persaud.

This is the same Raghubir that will put her mike to a Cabinet minister and the President and ask for a comment. This is the same Jonas that will demand government show accountability.
This is the same Isabelle DeCaires that sees the government as dysfunctional. But there is a larger danger ahead. If the board cannot interface with the editor, if DeCaires as majority shareholder cannot discuss the contents of the paper with the editor, then who is the editor accountable to? Is he a lone ranger?