DAYS before we reached Christmas Day, a controversy became public. Former President, David Granger issued a statement in response to what was said by a witness in the High Court libel writ that Cathy Hughes of the Alliance For Change brought against Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Mr Jagdeo’s witness, Robin Singh, told the court that Mr Granger had declared victory in the 2020 elections. Mr Granger wrote the newspapers asserting that he did no such thing. For me that is not a major topic for discussion in the political career of David Granger.
As someone deeply interested in the integrity of Guyana’ historiography, there are huge areas of interest in his presidential exercise of power that Mr Granger must discuss so Guyana’s historiography can be made richer. To date, Mr Granger has not elaborated on the pitfalls and advantages of being President of Guyana; I mean not one word.

Mr Granger has reacted furiously to Mr Singh’s court statement, but why no reaction four years after he demitted office about his presidency? Mr Granger’s tenure has been marked by widespread curiosities and controversies, and as a trained historian, Mr Granger knows how important a country’s historiography is to its future generations.

One can assert with massive certainty that Mr Granger knows how important it is to record history. He has books to his name about history, two of which are “Themes in African History” which he co-edited and “National Defence: A Brief History of the Guyana Defence Force, 1965- 2005,” which he authored. Mr Granger also has a small book on the history of the PNC.

Against this backdrop, Mr Granger must know how important it is to write because when you write, you contribute to your country’s historiography. People like Mr Granger need to write because they are getting on in age. Mr Granger is 78.
I am confused as to why after four years and with a social media outlet named, “The Public Interest,” Mr Granger avoids discussion on the five years that he was the President of Guyana.
In his introductory remarks on the first edition of The Public Interest, Mr Granger announced that it will be a series in which issues of interest to the Guyanese people will be examined. But why Mr Granger feels that Guyanese in and out of the land are not interested in the contents of the APNU+AFC government in which he was president for five years?

There are multiple dimensions of Mr Granger’s presidency that arouse curiosity in Guyanese wherever they live, and that curiosity will remain for a long time. Why is it that Mr Granger feels that he has to clear the air on his position during the five months of electoral controversy, but he cannot clear the air on so many other things said about him?

One of the many unanswered questions about Mr Granger’s presidency is his non-action on the retirement age of public servants when the Commission of Inquiry that he ordered recommended the elevation of the retirement age. What was the purpose of having the commission?
What did Mr. Granger had on his mind when he set up the commission? What was it he wanted to be done with the Public Service and why were those things not done? We must at all times remember Granger had a full five-year term. Then there is the amendment to the anti-narcotics law that APNU promised on the 2015 campaign trail.

The amendment was put on the Order Paper but was shelved. The rumour that has circulated since 2015 was that the Bill was scuttled because of Mr Granger’s disapproval. Michael Carrington, the Member of Parliament at the time in whose name the Bill was tabled, told this columnist on more than four occasions that he believes the Bill was shelved because Mr Granger was not in favour of the proposed changes.

These are just two grey areas of Mr Granger’s presidency that he needs to elaborate on during his presentations on The Public Interest. Maybe with the public announcement that he never declared a victory for APNU during the five months of election machinations, the nation will now see Mr Granger opening up on the positives and negatives of his presidency.

It has to be unheard of in any part of the world that a former president has a social media programme, but astutely avoids ventilating issues about his government that people need to hear about. I close with a reminder to readers that Mr Granger knows the importance of history to a country because he was trained as I did, as a historian at the University of Guyana. Better is expected of him.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.