The Rodney family has been treated differently from other families of adjudged victims of State violence

Nov 16, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Recent publications show the existence of different accounts of the same events, centering on the Commission of Inquiry into the death of Walter Rodney. A speech made by Dr. Patricia Rodney, Walter’s widow and now head of their family, sparked responses.
As I argue in this letter, there is a righteous way of closing this matter, if it is not to run for another 39 years. The first came from the Working People’s Alliance and, in response to it, came one from the PPP’s parliamentary Whip, Ms. Gail Teixeira. Ms. Teixeira’s letter served her party’s cause as she intended and also raised issues.
First, I question in passing two things that she said. She claims that the Working People’s Alliance had said that it was accumulating arms. Up to now, this statement has been reported as coming from Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine, a co-leader of the Working People’s Alliance, and not from the WPA. Her language is not an error of words, but it seems to me by choice.
Roopnaraine made that statement while speaking in a very personal capacity with a film-maker. I have written about a very provocative statement made by the PPP General Secretary and leader, Mr. Jagdeo, but I have not interpreted it as being made by the PPP. Even when there is a maximum leader, as in the case of the PPP, the distinctions should, in fairness, be observed.
Next, the honourable PPP Whip claims that the PPP leader, Dr. Cheddi Jagan, in public and in private, showed a high regard and respect for Walter Rodney. This was true up to a point, but it did not last.
During the last year of Walter Rodney’s life, the PPP leader personally warned some of his younger comrades against being attracted by Walter Rodney. We have gone over this before. After Rodney, during the 1980 General Election campaign, actively boycotted by the WPA, PPP leaders let loose.
Dr. Jagan, speaking at a public meeting at Grove, East Bank, Demerara, openly jeered at Walter Rodney. A brief report of his comments appeared in the Chronicle and he denied the report. The next Sunday, the Sunday Chronicle published a longer word-for-word report of Dr. Jagan’s comments and he was silent.
At Leonora in the same campaign, Mrs. Janet Jagan told the crowd: “Ask Sidney King what he did in Wismar in 1964.” Aware that the unfortunate Wismar events had been the subject of a Commission appointed by the PPP, I invited Mrs. Jagan in writing to disclose, without fear of court proceedings, my alleged offences. She was silent.

I am not writing as a neutral observer, because I am not. Unlike many, I have supported the Rodney political mission, not because of his scholarship and celebrity, but because of his personal sincerity and his solidarity with sufferers at all levels up to the time of his removal.
I disagreed with the Rodney family on one issue, that is, when I refused to sign their petition to the Government of South Africa to deny the late President Burnham the Oliver Tambo Award. I have stated privately and publicly that if nothing is done to undo the injustices of the Rodney Inquest of 1988 and the trial of Donald Rodney in 1982, I will be available to approach the Courts of Law to deliberate on these processes and pronounce on them.
I should now add that the inquest into the fatal shooting of Ohene Koama on November 18, 1979 was such a farce that it ended without the police officer, who witnessed the circumstances of the shooting, even attending the inquest. He was absent from each fixture held near the victim’s car in the Eve Leary compound, on the excuse that he was in Cuba for medical treatment.
President Granger, as a mature person new to the political arena, was in a difficult situation when, on becoming President, the party he led apparently began to press for the immediate closure of the Inquiry. Those who miss this point are missing a lot.
The PPP had, in mounting the Inquiry, treated the opposition parties as unworthy of being consulted. It ventured explanations which are not in keeping with parliamentary democracy, but tend to high-handedness. It was the National Assembly that carried a resolution in the year 2006, authorising a Commission of Inquiry.
The PPP had abstained on the vote because the word “assassination”, in its original motion, had been wisely amended to read “death”, out of respect for a guarantee of fairness. This treatment of elected parties as things of a lower status angered the PNC in particular which, assisted by Dr. Roopnaraine, had overcome its decades-long opposition to such an Inquiry.
Under the Commissions of Inquiry Act (Ch. 19:03), it is the President who creates a Commission, appoints the members, authorises the Terms of Reference and sets the rules governing the Commission. The need for consultation is not written into the Act, but an enlightened political culture will advise it.
The public will recall the tension created when it became known that the Commission would not have the time it desired to finish its work. You can tell a seamstress or a tailor that you must have your job by 5:00 p.m. But you cannot tell a surgeon how long to take for a surgery, or a panel of judges to finish their deliberations within a time frame not chosen by them. You can give these orders, but then you must take responsibility for any deficiency.
The Chairman of the Commission felt impelled to speak out in these circumstances. He said among other things that the new Government had the right to close down the Commission, or to issue a time limit. He gave instances in which new Governments had closed down the work of a Commission. He added, however, that if the Commission did not have enough time to finish its work, the fairness of the report could be affected.
Previously he had announced that he was assigning special parts of the report to particular members. Members of the public will have various opinions about whether the Commission had enough time to study, with the required care, the drafts of each of its members.
All in all, although the PPP, in mounting the Commission, filled a gap in the human rights and democratic process, the chief beneficiary of the Commission was not the aggrieved Rodney family, but the PPP. The ruling party was able to delight itself with the testimony that revealed and brought back to public attention the numerous violations of law and order and of the political process in the period reviewed.
Many citizens do not know that the Chairman of the Commission, in answer to a question at a forum in Barbados, said “it would have been better if the Opposition had been consulted on the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Commission.” He did not expand this answer he made to a question put to him.
The TOR contained a direction to identify “the intellectual author” of the crime that removed Walter Rodney from among us. The quoted phrase originated with Fidel Castro after the bombing of Letelier of Chile on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. It was placed in the TOR to show how loyal the PPP is to the rhetoric of celebrities. Notably absent from the TOR was any reference, direct or indirect, to redress for the losses imposed on the Rodney family with its very young children.
The consideration of redress could not be absent from the President’s mind. In 2012, there were mass demonstrations in Linden and the police opened fire, which resulted in the unfortunate deaths of three citizens and injuries to many. It is noteworthy that the TOR of the Wolfe Commission of 5, appointed after this incident, contained a direction to consider necessary compensation for the victims. No such direction appeared in the TOR of the Rodney Commission.
Finally, the PPP Whip, Ms. Teixeira, has gone on record in her reply to the WPA by reminding us that she attempted to move a motion, asking that the report be sent to a Select Committee of the National Assembly for scrutiny. Sending the COI report, already signed without dissent by the three Commissioners to a Select Committee, would have resulted in more talk, more paper, more minutes, without touching the outstanding issues.
The PPP, as well as the WPA and others present at the debate of the report, could have moved a motion, especially after the 2012 Linden Commission, requesting Parliament to appoint an expert committee of jurists and financiers to study the highly relevant issue of redress, such as compensation, in the light of the involvement of the State in the tragic event of June 13, 1980.
The quality of the PPP’s concern is also revealed in the fact that instead of directing its legal officers to seek remedies through the courts, they offered Donald Rodney a pardon, which for him would mean an admission of guilt.
Without taking legal advice, I am persuaded that means are open to people of good will to find appropriate means for just pursuit of the outstanding issues of redress and justice.
In addition to all the wrongs they had suffered, I am willing to argue, subject to informed wisdom, that the Rodney family has now been treated differently from other families of adjudged victims of State violence, contrary to constitutional guarantees against discrimination.
Yours respectfully,
Eusi Kwayana

---

---