Questions Sieyf Shahabuddeen should answer

Sep 10, 2022 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Kaieteur News – I received a complimentary copy of Sieyf Shahabudeen’s biography of his famous and brilliant father, former Attorney-General of Guyana, Mohamed Shahabudden (MS). I thank Sieyf (SS) for the complimentary autograph.

There can be no doubt that the former AG was one of the most erudite minds the legal profession of the Caribbean produced. I am not sure if he is not in competition to be considered the best.
His son’s biography is an interesting one – full of praise but lacking in self-criticism. The book is saturated with the speeches and achievements of MS but the spread is a convenient one.

A good example of this is where SS produced other people’s praise of his father but he left out critical commentaries against the jurist. For example, on page 63 of her book, “Freedom of Expression and the Birth of the Stabroek News, Historian Anna Benjamin, was not generous to MS for his contribution to the destruction of freedom of expression under the presidency of Forbes Burnham.

I see it as a negative dimension if one writes a biography of his father and omits the controversial confrontations he had when he held power as the Attorney-General of his country.
These omissions take away from the biography for two reasons. One is that it does a disservice to the researcher. Secondly, it does not offer the complete picture of the life of the subject.
It is baffling that SS does not deal, even in a cursory way, with the horror show that the 1980 constitution turned out to be. MS literally and virtually damaged his reputation by becoming a sycophant of Forbes Burnham.

The brilliance of MS was exploited by Burnham for the narcissistic consolidation of naked power. It appeared that MS was a willing hand in this depraved constitutional transformation into dictatorship.

Why would any talent as phenomenal as MS undertake to put into a constitution the types of power latitudes that should never be accessible to a leader? In chapter 5 of their excellent book, “Law and the Political Environment in Guyana,” professors Rudy James and Harold Lutchman, like Ms. Benjamin was not generous to MS.

On pages 92-93, the authors detailed the rejection of the suggestions of the Trade Union Congress which was submitted to the Constituent Assembly which was charged with writing the new constitution. Those changes MS did not find useful although they would have added democratic elements to the constitution.

The 1980 constitution of MS has left a stain on his legacy of MS and I’m afraid the love of a child pouring out his sentiments in a biography of his father is not the kind of stuff historians find acceptable.

The answer as to why SS failed at an absolute level to reflect on his father’s willing subordination to Burnham may lie in how he, SS, sees the 1980. It could be that he thinks his father did a master stroke with the 1980 constitution and should be praised rather than be condemned.

It still leaves the question opened as to why such an incisive mind and creative talent allowed himself to be a helper to an authoritarian figure who was absolutely power-drunk. It reminds me of Albert Speer and Hitler.

Speer was a brilliant architect and a decent man. Hitler admired his brilliance and made Speer a Cabinet Minister. How could a philosophy genius like Martin Heidegger have supported Hitler?
I guess we will not get the answer from SS because from reading his biography of his father, he thinks his father was completely good and faultless. I guess the mystery of why MS composed the 1980 constitution and defended Burnham’s totalitarianism will have to wait the research of objective scholars.

Now, there is an interesting part of the biography in which SS reproduced letters he wrote to the newspapers over the years. In a letter of February 22, 2020 he urged that the forthcoming general election should be free and fair.

In another missive dated June 7, 2020, SS advised President Granger that there should be no shame in losing an election. In a comment on this letter in the book, SS noted that the tampering with the election of March 2020 was criminal and that it was an ordeal for the Guyanese people. He wrote that the event will never be forgotten.

This present attitude of the younger Shahabuddeen does not square with the older one. The senior Shahabuddeen was quite comfortable mentally in support of Burnham rigging national elections and also was happy to ensure Burnham consolidated his illegal power through a dangerous constitution. The legacy of MS is opened to debate. I’m afraid I am not a fan.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)