Tacuma Ogunseye contests erroneous accusations against the WPA

Jun 25, 2021 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

I am conscious that my frequent responses to letters/columns in Kaieteur News may be stretching your tolerance, I am doing so to enhance public debate on national issues and to contest misrepresentations of people and organisations.
Freddie Kissoon’s column is once again the reason for my response: “Interview with Leyland De Cambra, founder of WPA UK branch” (KN June 23. 2021) edition. Two initial points: I don’t know Mr. De Cambra personally (except that a couple of times he appears by Kissoon’s own admission to provide information to Kissoon from social media), and I am not questioning his role in the UK WPA group. My response to his interview with Kissoon is based on what he states. I wish to alert readers that Kissoon would have had a prior discussion with Mr. De Cambra – “a fielder” before he decided to interview him.
Kissoon’s first question tells it all. He did not seek to establish De Cambra’s present relations with the WPA and his knowledge of the political situation in Guyana in the last decade. Kissoon: “I have been asked the question countless time since 2015 why the WPA, those in Guyana, and abroad, became so supportive of the PNC and rigged election, what is your take on that?” Not surprising the following is De Cambra’s answer: “I feel that for many people race is the main reason. For others it is opportunism, a selfish desire to gain office/benefits by associating with the APNU+AFC (Rupert Roopnaraine comes into this category). For others it was a historical dislike of the PPP.”
De Cambra shows no concern/knowledge of the political situation WPA had to deal with from 2000 to 2020. Of more importance, however, are the deficiencies in his historical memory that are pervasive in his interview. For example, on ASCRIA/PPP relations. In the mid- 1970s I spoke on PPP public meetings representing ASCRIA. This was long before the Rodney crisis, that is, after Walter Rodney was banned from working at the university. The ASCRIA and Kwayana moved to involve Dr. Jagan and the PPP in Rodney’s defence, but not on Walter’s instruction. And once again, for public information, the WPA was already established when Rodney returned and joined.
The WPA’s declaration that once the PNC conceded free and fair elections, we will work with it to advance democracy also predates the Jimmy Carter intervention. The WPA’s later position was that the PPP/C has developed a “criminal state” characterised by an alliance with drug lords, phantom and state-sponsored killings, corruption and economic/racial discrimination. This in short was the basis for working to build the APNU and later the coalition.
While it is the right of Freddie Kissoon and Mr. De Cambra to give their views on the political situation and the WPA’s role, I invoke my right to contest their erroneous accusations against the WPA. Importantly, the interview demonstrates the futility of placing reliance on persons who live abroad for many decades and were for a greater part of that time not engaged in the politics at home on the ground. Unfortunately, some allow themselves to be victims of Kissoon’s entrapment in his anti-WPA crusade. Mr De Cambra not only trolls social media for information for Kissoon, now the troll has been elevated to the status of an ‘interviewee’.
While penning this response I read Freddie Kissoon’s newest column, “Glem Hanoman writes about Rupert Roopnaraine and history is richer” where he is celebrating what he sees as an indictment of Roopnaraine. But what counsel Hanoman wrote objectively can only be interrupted as non-cooperation on the part of Rupert. I don’t think that he meant ill will to Rupert or the WPA. He stated what he felt was happening. However, is Hanoman’s perception the only explanation? Kissoon clearly feels so as he celebrates the “enrichment of history.” As Hanoman confirmed, Roopnarine was considered an important witness. Those of us in the WPA who were participating in the COI had worked out our strategy and tactics for the inquiry. We know that Roopnaraine’s testimony (he had indicated that he would testify) was critical and both the PPP/C and the PNC/R would be seeking political advantage which we denied them. There were two procedural issues we had to work around. Submission of statements and the timing of appearance of our witnesses. While we had no control of the latter, we had control of whether or not Rupert would volunteer a statement or force the commission to subpoena him. The latter route would have allowed him to go into the witness box and narrate his testimony, denying the PPP/C and PNC/R prior knowledge of his evidence.

Tacuma Ogunseye

---

---