Dear Editor,
The PPP administration has established a Commission of Inquiry to look into the death of the Guyanese historian and political activist, Dr Walter Rodney, on June 13, 1980. When the announcement came in relation to the establishment of the COI, most right-thinking people believed that it was the right thing to do, given the fact that his death had roiled the political waters for several decades both at home and abroad. Equally, it was believed that in normal democratic societies COIs, properly handled and transparently executed, can be an instrument for reconciliation and healing. Alas, Guyana does not appear these days to be a normal or a democratic society. Politics is always in command.
The most cursory examination will reveal that the Terms of Reference (TOR) appear to be at variance with any idea of healing and reconciliation and the general notion of the COI as an instrument for healing a society sorely divided by Walter Rodney’s death. Various and relevant comments have been made on the TOR, especially the burden it places on the COI of a half-way house between a criminal investigation and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And is there clearer evidence that the TOR has been politically engineered? At least one government spokesman has admitted that they were product of consultations between the Rodney family and the PPP administration. Note well not between the government and Rodney’s party or the main opposition party the PNC and other relevant stakeholders. This is a recipe for explosive disagreement and the prolonging of the bitterness that has made our post-independence politics so toxic.
My particular concern relates to paragraph four, which states that the inquiry will examine whether the security forces “were tasked with the surveillance of and the carrying out of actions, and whether they did execute those tasks and carried out those actions against the Political Opposition, for the period 1st January, 1978 to 31st December, 1980.” By the inclusion of this paragraph the entire Commission of Inquiry is likely to be politicized. If the PPP administration wanted closure on this matter, as it said it does, then it should not have included in the TOR elements by which the PNC can be targeted and results become grist for its propaganda mill. Surely, the PPP administration and even those opposed to the PNC cannot believe that in the hothouse atmosphere of the period the COI is expected to investigate the state would not have taken measures to protect itself?
In my judgment there is only one way the hearings of the COI can be credible, acceptable, and a force for political stability. It must take account of and give consideration to whether during the period in question acts were committed against the state and whether the state took any action in the face of open declarations that it must be overthrown. In addition, COI must investigate the public admission that arms were being stored and bombs were being made to effect the removal of the PNC government.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
