On claims about WPA–PPP talks and the Rodney inquiry

Dear Editor,

On the Question of a PPP/WPA Government in 1992 Mr. Kissoon claims to possess information that the WPA rejected an offer from the PPP to form a joint government following the 1992 elections. If he indeed has such information, he should make it public. Assertions of this magnitude require evidence, not insinuation.

As Chairperson of the WPA Committee of Conference in 1992, the party’s highest decision-making body at the time—I state clearly and unequivocally that the Committee, over which I presided, voted by majority to accept the offer to participate in government. Furthermore, Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine argued strongly and consistently in favor of the WPA accepting that offer.

It was not the WPA that withdrew from the arrangement. The offer was withdrawn by Dr. Cheddi Jagan and the PPP. The WPA appointed a three-member delegation—Moses Bhagwan, Clive Thomas, and me—to meet with Dr. Jagan and Dr. Roger Luncheon. The discussions addressed three principal matters:

• An arrangement for joint governance of Region 8 (a process I oversaw alongside Harry Persaud Nokta, which ultimately contributed to the PPP securing a majority in the National Assembly).
• The naming of individuals to serve on state boards;
• WPA representation at the Cabinet level.

At no point did the WPA make demands regarding Cabinet seats. Any suggestion to the contrary is entirely fictional.

2. On the Commission of Inquiry into the Death of Dr. Walter Rodney

As one of the principal persons involved in shaping the parameters for the Commission of Inquiry into the 1980 assassination of Dr. Walter Rodney—and as the individual who drafted the acceptance letter sent by the Rodney family to President Bharrat Jagdeo in 2005 to initiate that process—I state without reservation that Dr. Roopnaraine never rejected the idea of an inquiry.

From the moment of Walter Rodney’s assassination on June 13, 1980, Rupert Roopnaraine stood at the forefront of both local and international efforts demanding a credible and independent investigation. The historical record is clear on this matter.

It is therefore deeply disappointing that the national newspaper—funded by the taxpayers of Guyana—would permit itself to be used as a platform for the dissemination of untruths and personal animus directed at a man whose public life was marked by intellectual rigor, integrity, and commitment to justice.

Public debate is vital to democracy. But it must be anchored in fact, not someone’s mischievous and provocative intent.