Dear Editor,
Neil Adams` letter on March 1, 2023 is very instructive, not because of its content. It is instructive because of its source and timing. We have been exposed to the letters of Neil Adams and are therefore acquainted with his thought process and on which side of the equation he sits.
IDPADA-G wrote to President Ali, in the latter half of 2022, requesting to meet with him. We never received a written or formal response. However, on three occasions he orally agreed to meet. Instead, what eventuated was a public attack on IDPADA-G and its leadership by Second Vice President Jagdeo, followed by deafening and patent silence from the President. The promise to meet has not been honoured by the President. Is this the case of an insincere commitment or was it an edict?
The Chief Justice, on February 27, 2023, followed up on her previous exhortation for IDPADA-G and the Government to mediate their differences. She deferred the hearing of the matter by one month and explicitly provided for the parties to engage in talks. On the heels of that exhortation, Neil Adams writes a letter implying that IDPADA-G should not be treated as a representative of the People of African Descent. In other words, IDPADA-G should not be engaged. This flies in the face of IDPADA-G`s standing locally and internationally; the wishes of 65 African Guyanese organizations that constitute IDPADA-G; and the role that IDPADA-G has played thus far. Given what occurred previously, Adams` letter raises eyebrows about its real motive.
Having exposed his apparent motive, I will address his contention because it exposes the mindset of Adams and his ilk. Adams seeks to articulate what IDPADA-G should be, then proceeds to discredit IDPADA-G on the basis that it is not what it should be. In that regard, he built a straw house, which he then sought to tear down. Adams clearly sought to mislead the public on the existence and role of IDPADA-G, but only succeeded in exposing the propagandistic motive of his mischievous letter.
He accuses IDPADA-G of not being publicly accountable. That is a statement that anyone can make. But in this instance, his mischief is exposed. He may also be described as a stranger to the truth or an incompetent researcher. It is documented and public knowledge that IDPADA-G has fulfilled its responsibility to account; and met all of its statutory requirements such as:
1. Timely audits;
2. Monthly subvention requests to the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports that clearly spelt out the heads under which the subvention would be expended, in keeping with the approved budgetary allocation.
3. Membership meetings, including one four weeks ago at which an annual report inclusive of an account of its income and expenditure was presented;
4. Provision of its documents to the Ministry of Finance for an investigative audit for the period 2018 thru 2021;
5. An offer to conduct an early 2022 audit;
6. Public coverage of its numerous activities; and
7. Countless exposures to the media, all in addition to other exposures.
Adams further contends that Alexander, as a politician, should not be the head of IDPADA-G. Here is Adams showing no respect for the unanimity of 17 organisations that initially elected Alexander and the collective will of 65 organisations that reelected him. His contention also tramples on the constitutional right of association. Who is Adams to determine who should be in the leadership of IDPADA-G? Suffice to say that he has presented no evidence to justify this contention or any of his contentions
Further his contention exposes the mindset and duplicity of Adams and his ilk. IDPADA-G would never question the right of Miss Vindhya Persaud, M.P to head the Hindu Dharmic Sabha and be a member of the Central Committee of the PPP at the same time, just to mention one such example.
Adams can hardly be forgiven for the misinformation spewed in his letter. The Chairman of IDPADA-G never “wrote to the Chairwoman of CARICOM to come to Guyana to look into the results of that election”. She was, from all indications, invited here by the President Granger, in her capacity as the then serving Chair of CARICOM.
IDPADA-G took the opportunity to alert her to the flaws in Guyana`s governance structure in the face of majoritarian rule in an ethnically fractured society. We opined that to merely determine a victor at elections would not solve the country`s deep rooted problem. This is a position that leading African Guyanese organisations, such as the African Cultural Development Association, have held for some time now. If that is being political, so be it. It certainly isn’t partisan. The APNU did not make that call.
IDPADA-G`s legitimacy as the Country`s Coordinating Mechanism for the International Decade for People of African Descent is unchallenged. No Adams can appoint himself to determine such a matter. He is free, as anyone one else is, to disassociate himself. But, he certainly can`t stand in judgment on the matter.
Sincerely,
Vincent Alexander
Chair
IDPADA-G
