Kaieteur News (KN) in its Wednesday, July 18, 2018 edition carried a letter written by Mr Baldeo Mathura captioned `An ever-present Bharrat Jagdeo is creating a headache for his critics’.
His letter was a response to an earlier letter written by me that dealt with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruling that barred Bharrat Jagdeo from running for a third term as President of Guyana. My letter was published in the Stabroek News and the Guyana Chronicle, under the captions `The contention that Jagdeo is unbeatable is erroneous’ and `Given Jagdeo’s known history, he would have been an easier candidate to beat,’ respectively. Importantly, this letter, like many others written by me, was not carried in the KN which seems to have an editorial policy of not publishing my letters. The editor and publisher of KN, to all appearances, see no injustice in carrying letters of my critics in a situation that does not permit me the right to reply in that paper.
Mathura, in his letter came to the defence of the former President and leader of the PPP, Bharrat Jagdeo, questioning the wisdom of my narrative and the evidential basis for my contention. In normal circumstances, I would have written a full response to Mathura. However, in the present situation, I will refrain from doing so until such time that both the publisher and editor of KN issue a public assurance that their unpublicised ban on me is lifted.
I have reflected on the hypocrisy of KN for many months and have concluded that while those in charge of the paper have professed to be committed to democracy, openness and fair play in the society, they have been secretly using their power and influence provided by the paper to prevent me from having the opportunity to respond to my detractors who use KN to attack and vilify me.
While I am not challenging the right of the owners and management of KN to decide what can and will be published in their newspaper, my concern is about their unprincipled behaviour. While those in charge of the paper use it daily as an instrument through which they promote the lambasting of the government on “democratic shortcomings”, sometimes unjustifiably so, they themselves are guilty of the same practice.