Vincent Alexander cannot remember how Mark Kirton was appointed

Jul 23, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter by Vincent Alexander, former Registrar of the University of Guyana captioned, “The Appointment and Revocation of Vice Chancellor Kirton” (KN Wednesday, July 19, 2017). He was responding to my column of July 18, 2017 with the heading, “An encounter with Judge Navindra Singh at the supermarket.” In that article, I wrote that after he was appointed as acting Vice Chancellor, Dr. Kirton’s tenure was dissolved the next day. This is what Alexander wrote in his response; “The Registrar…under the instruction of the Vice Chancellor, Prem Misir, appointed Kirton as acting Vice Chancellor without reference to the Council of the University.”
Alexander ended his letter with the following words; “My concern is to ensure that the history and the records of the university are not distorted.” Unfortunately, Alexander has committed what he wanted to avoid doing. He has distorted the record and the history of UG with his letter. I respect Vincent enough to know that it was not deliberate. At our age, we tend to forget.
Dr. Mark Kirton was legally appointed by the Council of the University. Dr. Kirton’s was appointed in an acting capacity. I think Alexander is misinterpreting the appointment of an acting position with a substantial one. And he may be unaware of the circumstances in which the Pro-Chancellor, who chairs the Council in the absence of a Vice Chancellor and Chancellor, can make decisions that are not within the realm of essential policy-making.
At the time of the Kirton issue, the Council was without a Vice Chancellor and Chancellor. I quote from a letter dated August 24, 2005 from the Registrar to Dr. Kirton; “At a meeting of the Council of the University of Guyana held on August 11, 2005, a Committee was appointed to identify and appoint (please not the word, “appoint’) the most suitable academic from within the University community to act as Vice Chancellor…. the Committee unanimously agreed to appoint you, Dr. Mark Kirton as acting Vice Chancellor….”
I have been a member of the Council for five years. I have seen more times than I can count when the Pro-Chancellor acted on behalf of the Council. This is what happened. He accepted the Committee’s recommendation and acted on behalf of the Council. Alexander in his letter should have proven that the Pro-Chancellor could not have legally done so.
Mr. Alexander has not only lacerated and besmirched the history and records of the university but the history of the country with his misleading letter. Dr. Kirton was removed on the instruction of the President of Guyana which at the time assumed authoritarian power. President Jagdeo was annoyed that Rose was voted out and that someone with a distant relation to opposition politicians was appointed.
The council was ordered to meet in full session and cancel the acting appointment of Kirton. That was public knowledge at the university and in Guyana. Mr. Alexander cannot pretend that he did not know of the circumstances prevailing in the country and at the university in 2005 that would have favoured Rose over Kirton and the politicization and political control of the Council and the university itself.
In fact, with my involvement, we took the removal of Kirton to court and got writs of NISI and Mandamus from Justice Winston Patterson. But the Registrar Dr. David Chanderbali was advised by Ralph Ramkarran, legal advisor to UG, in a letter dated 13 September 2005 that, “Rose is legally entitled to continue in the post of Vice-Chancellor to which he was appointed notwithstanding the Order Nisi…”
Like Alexander, I write to make sure the facts that make up the history of Guyana are not distorted. When we write about that saga involving Rose and Kirton and the university, we cannot remove the political circumstances prevailing at the time that would have led to massive control of the university by the government of the day. If anything in 2005 was dominated by the PPP Government it was the university in which eight Council members belonged to PPP district groups and six Council members were PPP parliamentarians. I was there during those days so was Vincent. I am older than Vincent by a year so if I can remember what happened at UG in those days so can he. I hope Vincent’s memory isn’t fading
Frederick Kissoon

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News