The WPA refuses to discuss its political shape

Aug 04, 2018 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

I received in my personal mailbox, a letter from the secretary of the WPA overseas group, Keith Branch. I opened it. It was addressed to media houses too. Since it was posted to me, I thought I should open it. It was a press release condemning Minister Brooms for her behaviour in the car park incident.
I replied to Branch; “I say to you that the behaviour of your leader, Roopnaraine, is far more treacherous than anything Broomes has done. Why write on Broomes and not about your own house. Basic decency demands this. How you guys can be so morbidly hypocritical. You have no moral right to comment on the behaviour of any AFC, PPP and PNC politician. God you WPA clowns sicken me to the core.”
Here is an edited version of the WPA’s response through Keith Branch; “Mr. Kissoon, I take umbrage to you slandering the members of this organization by describing them in (sic) with derogatory language. I ask you herewith to desist immediately. Keith.”
Lincoln Lewis intervened and in the process of defending my right to analyze the WPA, he wrote; “Finally, let me say, if there is offense taken by the language and tenor of Freddie’s response, be reminded that the members of the WPA are not innocent in the issue of name calling and pointing fingers. A noted example is a President of this country was publicly ridiculed and named King Kong, an act initiated and committed by the WPA from its leadership. What Freddie is merely pointing out is the practice of double standards among politicians and he is quite right. Such a recognition should not be stifled but allowed ventilation. Lincoln.”
Keith Branch responded to the King Kong incident and wrote; “You referred to the WPA calling then Prime Minister Burnham King Kong, this was first done spontaneously at a public meeting on Bourda Green as the army helicopter flew overhead, reminiscent of the movie. Context is important. Keith.”
Now the WPA uses context to explain the label of King Kong to President Burnham but denies context in my response. Before I deal with the context of accusing the WPA of hypocrisy in politics let me get the libel thing out of the way. Mark Benschop also joined the debate.
I reiterate my position. I find it distasteful that the WPA can issue a press release castigating Minister Broomes over an innocuous, private incident that has no implication on the current shape of power, but continues to remain silent on a major grotesque shape of power in the government – the role of Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine.
Two incontrovertible facts are out there. One is the dispute between President Granger and the WPA. The president said Roopnaraine was appointed a WPA minister with the consultation of the WPA. The WPA denies this. Secondly, the WPA said Roopnaraine resigned then took it back without consulting his party. Does Roopnaraine represent the WPA in the Cabinet?
This is a legitimate political question in Guyana that political observers and the media need to take up. In the APNU umbrella, Keith Scott is the Minister of Labour representing the National Democratic Alliance. Junior Finance Minister, Jaipaul Sharma, is the choice of the Justice for All Party. Sydney Allicock, has the portfolio of Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs Minister delegated to Cabinet by his party, Guyana Action Party. One assumed that until controversy swirled around the reassignment of Roopnaraine from the Ministry of Education, that he was the first choice of the WPA for a Cabinet position.
The WPA contended that it was not consulted in the reassignment of Roopnaraine and it was during the vortex of that imbroglio, the WPA at a press conference told the nation that the APNU leadership did not formally consult the WPA as to which person it wanted to have take up Cabinet assignment. It said Roopnaraine would have been its natural choice, but it was not formally asked.
The vortex remains because Roopnaraine resigned from the Cabinet. The WPA wrote that he made the decision with the WPA’s blessing. Then Roopnaraine and the WPA each dropped a bombshell on the nation. Roopnaraine rescinded his resignation. The WPA’s press release stated that he did not inform the WPA of his resignation withdrawal.
There are legitimate questions that the WPA must answer and it is not prepared to do so, and it must be pressed to give answers. Is Roopnaraine the WPA’s man in the Cabinet? Has the WPA discussed with Roopnaraine why he recalled his resignation without informing his party? In any political party would there not be the need for an emergency meeting? Was there one? What is Roopnaraine’s present Cabinet status?

---

---