Rodney CoI on rocky grounds…APNU peeved with Guyana-born Commissioner’s appointment

Mar 07, 2014 News

---

“It is clear that govt. desires a certain outcome”
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)’s Shadow Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams, categorically stated yesterday that the coalition is not pleased with the appointment of Guyana-born, Trinidad-based Senior Counsel Mr. Seenath Jairam as Commissioner to the recently constituted Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry (CoI).

During a press briefing at APNU’s Hadfield Street Headquarters, Williams said that the  concern is grounded on the premise that Jairam, based on his connection with the government, cannot be considered to be “politically neutral” thereby presenting the potential for a clear bias to exist.
The Member of Parliament reminded that in 2012 after the Parliamentary majority in the National Assembly reduced the budget, Jairam was retained by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) to represent the government in the case that was brought against the Leader of the Opposition David Granger and Speaker of the House, Raphael Trotman.
“Given the very sensitive political nature of this Commission, the Partnership would have hoped that the PPP/C Administration would have selected Commissioners that are politically neutral and individuals with no links to the government so as to at least give the perception of impartiality.”
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Shadow Minister expressed that apart from their concerns with regard to Mr. Jairam, they also have some difficulties with the Terms of Reference for the CoI.
“Our belief is confirmed by the PPP’s release in today’s (yesterday’s) newspapers that it appears that the inquiry is targeting the period when the People’s National Congress (PNC) was in government.”
“… especially recommendation four, which says that the commissioners are to examine and report on the actions and activities of the state such as the Guyana Police Force, the Guyana Defence Force, the Guyana National Service , the Guyana People’s Militia and those who were in command and superintendence of these agencies, to determine whether they were tasked with the surveillance of and the carrying out of actions, and whether they did execute those tasks and carried out those actions against the Political Opposition, for the period 1st January, 1978 to 31st December, 1980.”
Williams opined that this amounts to nothing more than a witch hunt.

“Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. That’s a well-worn adage in the law, but could justice be seen to be done when you have a SC who was prosecuting a very important case on the welfare of all Guyanese people against the Opposition?
He was here to tell us we couldn’t cut our budget. Could he be impartial? As lawyers would know, there would be a likelihood of bias. We aren’t questioning the competence; but certainly a man who has been involved in partisan politics in Guyana ought not to be sitting to determine the involvement of the main political opposition party during that period.”
Williams was asked whether members of APNU would be participating in the Inquiry.
“We will take things one step at a time. We will make the assessment as to whether it is necessary to participate in such an inquiry, but we are showing you right now that we believe they started on the wrong foot.”
The APNU parliamentarian also voiced his surprise at the fact that members of the political opposition were not consulted with respect to the CoI and its Terms of Reference.
“They (PPP) have just done everything without consultations with the Opposition, so it is clear that the government desires a certain outcome in this matter.”
“This is supposed to embark on an inquiry, but when you look at the Terms of Reference they are suggesting that they know the answer. For example, the first term of reference which says, ‘to examine the facts and circumstances immediately prior, at the time of, and subsequent to, the death of Dr. Rodney in order to determine, as far as possible, who or what was responsible for the death of the historian’. There is nothing whatsoever here as to whether he himself might have been culpable in his own demise. They have excluded that possibility.”
Williams then reminded that the statements being given would be from 30 years ago. He stressed that the accuracy of the recollection of those events is something that requires a lot of consideration as well.
In concluding, he also cited another term of reference which he said may “open all kinds of Pandora’s boxes.”
It makes provision for one to have “absolute pardon” if fingered in the unfortunate event.
“It opens all kinds of Pandora’s boxes… and what does this absolute pardon mean? A person would come up and say; ‘I was involved’ and he would give evidence and be pardoned?  What if he implicates John Thomas’s name and he is not around? Such provisions I believe will be good in a Truth and Reconciliation Committee. This is an Inquiry.”
Asked if considering the aforementioned concerns he believes the CoI will not bring closure to the case, Williams firmly asserted, “With the points I have raised, you can draw your own conclusion.”
The CoI is being chaired by Barbadian Queen’s Counsel, Sir Richard Cheltenham, with the others being Mr. Jairam, and Jamaican Queen’s Counsel, Jacqueline Samuels-Brown.

---

---