The rhetoric and the reality of the Rodney case

Jul 17, 2013 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Writing in rage is not M. Maxwell’s best suit, for it lays bare the sloppiness of his arguments that aren’t even masked by the penchant for stringing ‘big words’ together. Refer to his letter “Minette Bacchus’ shamelessly convenient reasoning and typical cherry-picking,” KN July 16, 2013.
The issue under focus, from day one, is the need to move from accusing Forbes Burnham of being culpable for Walter Rodney’s death to proving the accusation. The inability or unwillingness to prove by those who over the years have accused continues with all sorts of diversionary tactics and excuses. It is a behaviour that gives credence to the claim persons are cannibalising Rodney’s name to ensure their relevance/sympathy/career.  Persons are descending into the cesspool of ridiculous.
It is not for me to address Maxwell’s nine pointers because he thinks they are “germane and pivotal” since they do not state culpability, which remains my interest, and are therefore best answered by him.
I have not accused and have no need to prove. It is Maxwell who continues to accuse and his questions would be best served and answered at the Independent International Commission of Enquiry (IICE) by making himself available to have the panel or whomever answer his questions, they be ruled relevant/irrelevant, or he be cited for Public Mischief.
It is sincerely hoped this is factored into the IICE and such carries a fine of jail or community service and the culpable be assigned to a Chain Gang to clean up Georgetown, including the Le Repentir cemetery.
Maxwell’s words of July 1, repeated July 16 are, “The Burnham defenders say Rodney had an accident and blew himself up (see Forbes Burnham’s statement from 2.46 to 3.22 of the You Tube video titled ‘War Stories Trailers’ posted by Mykal Cushnie). Rodney’s death was no accident. Logically, it can only be an accident if Rodney knew he was holding a bomb. No rational human being, after losing three of his bodyguards and lieutenants, knowingly tests a live bomb that could be remotely triggered in the enclosed space of a car (a luxury in those days) and in the company of his beloved brother.”
How relevant is the insertion of the YouTube info, bodyguard, car being a luxury, blah, blah to making known Maxwell’s claim to “accident”  and “bomb” which are recognised in quoting him? Was his claim distorted in anyway? No. But this is the assininity readers have to suffer in the name of Rodney!
Maxwell and Freddie Kissoon are among those who find fertile ground in a society where people are not usually held to account, so they jump on the bandwagon to peddle the fare of Burnham’s culpability because it provides political/social recognition.
They are not interested in proving their case via evidence to an adjudicating body. Keeping the truth from the public of Rodney’s death and the demonisation of Burnham in fulfillment of this are more important to them that ensuring justice for Rodney and Burnham.
It matters not to them the offspring of the accused and accuser are calling for answers; sections of society, or the nation’s leading newspapers editorialising to the effect (SN May 12, 2013 and KN May 13, 2013). To these provocateurs this is like throwing water on duck’s back.
The limelight is more important so they propagate their claim to “know.” Note, they are not calling for the enquiry and some among them gave lukewarm support to the government’s June 13, 2013 promise, with some seeing it as ‘strategy’ by the PPP to divert attention or create division within the APNU.
When in 1980 Burnham was accused, the efforts by his administration to utilise external forensic experts were discredited by the WPA even before any arrived and seen as “the regime has been brazen enough to tell the Guyanese people that it has invited experts from well-known imperialist police forces from imperialist capitals in a highly political incident in which they may have been involved at an earlier stage” (Press Release June 17, 1980).
The inquest held during the Desmond Hoyte administration was said to have fallen short. In 1996 then Chief Magistrate K.Juman-Yassin charged Gregory Smith for murder and his extradition from French Guiana posed a problem given the variance in the two countries’ laws, which offered the PPP coverage not to pursue.
Ralph Ramkarran’s article “Remembering Walter Rodney” proves enlightening (SN June 16, 2013). In 2005 the National Assembly voted for the IICE into Rodney’s death -the Burnham’s PNC voted yea and the PPP abstained from its motion.
For those unaware, Rodney came from a family with strong PPP ties. His father Edward Percival was a PPP activist and brothers’ Eddie, a former PPP Member of Parliament and Hubert sits on State boards as the PPP representative.
So the question must be asked, why aren’t these forces getting together to do right by Walter?
Minette Bacchus

---

---