THE PROMISE THAT IS STILL IN LIMBO

Jan 25, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Before all the hullaballoo over the legacy of Walter Rodney fades, it is worth a reminder that this year will mark the 30th anniversary of his assassination and so far there have been no announced plans of any major observances of this milestone.

Perhaps, those responsible for preserving the memory of his contributions, as well as, and including, those who are so eager to jump on any criticism of his fallibility, will not ensure that this year’s anniversary does not become another postscript.

What Che said of Castro is equally applicable to Rodney. Persons of such quality and integrity do not come often in a lifetime. History does not often throw up individuals of such mettle.

Guyana was very fortunate to have produced such an outstanding individual and it would equally be a loss if the memory of his life and what he stood for are lost to future generations.

There is a great haste by his supporters to confront attempts at revising his memory, but there seems to be less enthusiasm to preserving and promoting the ideals that he stood for. The 30th anniversary of his death perhaps is as good an opportunity for his party to make a serious reexamination of his ideology and his contributions to Guyana.

Five years ago, a great many persons came together to observe the 25th anniversary of his passing. His wife called for closure to his death and the government consented to an inquiry.

One of his colleagues was asked to help prepare the terms of reference for the inquiry at which the same colleague was likely to be a witness or at least someone who is supposed to look after the interest of the party or the family.

This presents a problem of a conflict of interests, something that the government did not seem to appreciate.

The government ought never to have asked any leader of the WPA to help in framing the terms of reference. It ought to have been aware that the year following this decision was likely to be an election year and the WPA was engaged in building an alliance with the party which it is alleged was responsible for the death of Walter Rodney.

Any inquiry that would have indicted the PNC would have thus posed problems for Big Tent and alliance politics involving the opposition and this may explain why the inquiry has been stymied.

But an explanation is necessary because five years have passed since the request for closure to the Rodney investigation. The WPA must explain the procrastination and failure to frame the terms of reference since one of its leaders was mandated to do so.

Ultimately however, it is the government which promised an inquiry and which has failed to deliver one.

The government must therefore explain its failure to keep its promise of an inquiry, regardless of the fact that it may still be waiting for the WPA’s wordsmith to come up with his draft terms of reference.

One may question what is to be obtained by pursuing a credible inquiry after thirty years, especially considering that the man who is alleged to have given Rodney the device that brought about his death, is no longer a resident on planet Earth. It may also be asked what about obtaining evidence after so long.

We must also not forget that there was an extremely belated inquiry into Rodney’s death, one that is not accepted by his party as credible.

This pronounced that he died by misadventure. Then there is the controversy about the pathologist who was flown in to carry out the autopsy on Rodney.

All of this just adds to the need for a credible inquiry that would pronounce, however great the constraints, as to the circumstances that led to Rodney’s death.

There are persons already at work questioning why the WPA used the world “death” or “killed” during the debate on the parliamentary motion which approved of a commission of inquiry five years ago.

The PPP was insisting on the word “assassination” rather than “death” or “killed”. Those that disapproved of the use of “assassination” were more clear-sighted.

To have used the world “assassination” or any of its variants in the motion approving the commission of inquiry would have been prejudicial for it would have indicated that the movers of the motion were already decided as to the nature of his death rather than seeking to ascertain whether it was murder, accident or misadventure.

Five years after the promise of an inquiry, the demand for closure to his death seems to be overrun by a raging debate as to his contributions to the liberation of Guyana and whether he was naïve in his choice of methods.

This is unfortunate because there is need for a credible inquiry into Rodney’s death, regardless of the time that has elapsed since his demise.

---

---