The messengers are being made the issue rather than the message

Aug 03, 2009 Letters

Dear Editor,

After spending two days (so far) listening to witness testimony under direct and cross examination in the trial of Robert Simels, and following the subsequent fall out in Guyana via the internet, quite a few questions come to mind.

Firstly, I will say that anyone can say virtually anything on the witness stand as has been noted by Government officials in Guyana. But even with a ‘deal’ every cooperating witness (as Selwyn Vaughn is) is still bound to tell the truth as these agreements do not include the right to engage in perjury.

In fact, it has been pointed out that lying on the witness stand would violate that agreement between the prosecution and Vaughn and possibly land Vaughn in jail for up to 15 years. So, the incentive to lie – if it can be called that – is indeed not as attractive as it has been made out to be. In fact, it serves as a deterrent.

Secondly, the most recent offensive by the government on this issue seeks to make the reporter the story. Trumpeting that it is only the word of Enrico Woolford and “not the word of God” as Gail Teixeira put it, the government has taken the stance that it is the reporter who is stirring the pot. I respectfully disagree, and find it more than passing strange that the messengers (Peter Myers, Selwyn Vaughn, The prosecution, The Defence and the reporter) are being made the issue rather than the message.

While it has been noted that Capitol News is the only agency with a reporter in New York covering the trial, that itself becomes a story! Why has this trial with the potential for such dramatic revelations not attracted a higher Guyanese media presence here?

The New York Daily News was in court as was the New York Post, The New York Times, the New York Law Journal and the Village Voice have all covered the story too, certainly not Guyanese dailies.

Can it be that while some media houses are strapped for cash (I should note that Capitol News is probably the smallest media house in Guyana and still musters the resources to cover overseas events), others have taken a conscious perhaps “selective” decision to ignore the trial and the issues contained therein given the revelations, and potential for scandal and embarrassment?

Also, given that the government vehemently denies any involvement in purchasing the ‘spy equipment’ why not investigate the allegations of Vaughn and debunk them one by one? Vaughn said in court the type of vehicle he drove, where he was when Donald Allison was shot etc.

Begin with these seemingly innocuous pieces of information and eliminate them, moving systematically to the larger issues and allegations. The benefits to the Guyana Government it would seem would far outweigh just railing at the messengers. Take for instance, if indeed Dr. Ramsammy were not party to the purchase of the equipment, then make a concerted effort to get the documentation that Smith Myers has authorising the purchase on behalf of the Guyana Government.

This could well be a case of someone impersonating the good doctor and the wider implications of that I need not get into given that we have already seen the havoc wreaked by the phone intercepting laptop. This will clear Dr. Ramsammy and possibly nab an identity thief in addition to preventing further crimes.

Finally, both the defence and the prosecution have put forth that Dr. Ramsammy was responsible for the purchase of the spy equipment. Two sides in a court case, diametrically opposed to each other, each with its own interests, neither with a particular focus on Dr. Ramsammy (or he might have been called as a witness), both implicating the Health Minister.

Not the present Home Affairs Minister who is responsible for security, not the Secretary of the Defense Board, but the Minister of Health. Why? Why not someone with a security portfolio, if indeed it is a frame job as Dr. Ramsammy thunders?

These proceedings are being held in the US but have significant implications in Guyana. Let us not forget the Thomas Carroll trial during which some similarly startling revelations came to light.

Mr. Enrico Woolford also covered that case in Chicago. A section of the Guyana Police Force was fingered in contract killings and enforcement for Carroll and denials were issued in Guyana. Long after, that section of the Force – the target special squad or Black Clothes Squad – was quietly disbanded. Why?

As I’ve heard numerous times before, there are no inappropriate questions, just inappropriate answers.

Duane Fowler