This letter is for future generations researching Guyana’s history

Jul 30, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The dispute between me and Ralph Ramkarran has been given adequate ventilation in the pages of this newspaper. It all began with a letter from Mr. Ramkarran in which he demanded retractions of certain passages in one of my columns and an apology. If same was not done, the paper and I would face libel writs. Since then, a letter appeared in support of Mr. Ramkarran captioned, “Ralph Ramkarran would never apologize to inferior quality.”
It is this letter I am replying to and for one reason only. If very long from now, one is researching any legacy left by me or Mr. Ramkarran, then, if there isn’t this response here, only Karran’s letter will be available. I am not going to reply to the scurrilous remarks made against me by T. Karran. I have been a social activist my entire life and a media operative for three decades. After a while you come to expect these derogations and they fade immediately from your mind never to be remembered.
This missive here in response to T. Karran seeks to show every human in and out of this country the nature of a nationality classified as Guyanese and a society named Guyana. We begin with Mr. Ramkarran’s letter to this newspaper indicating the intention to take legal action. Mr. Ramkarran’s correspondence stated; “The statement is therefore defamatory, malicious and calculated to besmirch our client’s (Mr. Ramkarran) good reputation and to lower his character in the estimation of the public and has so done.”
Yet in studying Ramkarran letter which charges maliciousness on the part of my column in question, this newspaper referred to “attempts at dishonesty” in the very Ramkarran missive. How can you accuse someone of being hurt and will seek legal action against them but you are dishonest in your claim? What or where are these “attempts at dishonesty. Here is the evidence. I quote from my column of July 18, 2017, “It makes you want to throw up when you read Anil Nandlall’s daily ruminations in the newspapers about the rule of law being violated, Bharrat Jagdeo talking nonsense about political victimization of PPP supporters at his weekly press conferences and the arid sermons about violations in the letter section of the newspapers by Donald Ramotar. All three of these former PPP Leviathans should be ostracized by civilized society. Sadly, we don’t have such a society in Guyana.” (End of quote)
Any school boy would know that the three Leviathans here are Nandlall, Jagdeo and Ramotar. A Leviathan in political theory refers to a very powerful exerciser of governmental authority; in this case, the former Attorney-General, and two former presidents.
Mr. Ramkarran then cited the following lines in my column, “…Bharrat Jagdeo and Henry Jeffrey and Ralph Ramkarran were part of a state apparatus that did what it wanted to.” Then after those words of mine, Mr. Ramkarran wrote the following, “…he recommends that all three of these former Leviathans should be ostracized by civil society.”
Those words came after several paragraphs on Nandlall, Jagdeo and Ramotar in my column and were applied to them not Ramkarran. Since Ramkarran said “Leviathan” was applied to him, it damaged his character and he wanted a retraction and an apology. I did retract the words and apologize. I did that to protect the paper I write for and to get on with my life rather than be bogged down with Ramkarran in a court of law in my older age. But the paper saw the offence in Ramkarran’s letter and described it as “attempts at dishonesty.”
What are the lessons to be learnt here? Simply! This is the nature of Guyana where truths are casualties. Here is another example where truths become casualties. In his correspondence threatening libel, Mr. Ramkarran said I damaged his character through the use of the following words in my column; “Kirton was not allowed to continue because UG’s lawyer, Ralph Ramkarran (is he still UG’s lawyer, I hope not?) informed the Pro Chancellor that Justice Patterson’s order of certiorari didn’t not include the retention of Kirton.”
Mr. Ramkarran took objection to that and wrote that that I insinuated “that Ramkarran…was engaged in a course of action designed to pervert the course of justice.” There are no such words in my column only the simple truth that Ramkarran wrote the University advising them to ignore the two orders by the judge. This he did in two letters to the university, one dated September 7, 2005, the other September 13, 2005.
To prove that he did not do such a thing, Mr. Ramkarran described in careful details with specific dates the course of events from the time we filed the writs to stop the revocation of Dr. Mark Kirton’s appointment to the conclusion of the case in the year 2005. Missing in his meticulous description is the date September 5. It was on that date the judge issued two orders halting the removal of Dr. Kirton. Mr. Ramkarran, for reasons readers can comprehend for themselves, chose not to mention that two orders were issued and he advised the university to disregard them.
I write this letter so that maybe long from now, researchers can see what Guyana was like but most of all my trials and tribulations. For all you know, my daughter may very well be the one to chronicle this aspect of my life
Frederick Kissoon

---

---