Skip to main content

FM
Former Member
Home > TOP STORY > Gopaul, Rohee tell Rodney COI of the dark days of the late 1970s… PNC Gov’t unleashed ‘never-before-seen’ violence, terror – Rodney was a clear target
From left Commissioners Seenauth Jairam, Chairman Sir Richard Cheltenham, and Jacqueline Samuels- Brown debate a point before making a ruling [Photos by Adrian Narine)
From left Commissioners Seenauth Jairam, Chairman Sir Richard Cheltenham, and Jacqueline Samuels- Brown debate a point before making a ruling (Photos by Adrian Narine)

Gopaul, Rohee tell Rodney COI of the dark days of the late 1970s… PNC Gov’t unleashed ‘never-before-seen’ violence, terror – Rodney was a clear target

 

 

THUGS, goons, political crisis, violence, discrimination, marginalisation, party paramountcy and dictatorship were among the many adjectives punctuating the fourth day of hearings at the High Court Buildings yesterday, when the Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the 1980 assassination of Dr Walter Rodney of the Working Peoples Alliance (WPA) continued.

Labour Minister, Dr Nanda Gopaul and Home Affairs Minister Mr Clement Rohee were the most recent witnesses to appear before COI Chairman, Sir Richard Cheltenham, and Commissioners Seenauth Jairam and Jacqueline Samuels–Brown and give their perspectives on the political climate during the 1978 and 1980 period.

VIOLENCE UNLEASHED

During the course of the COI, the then Forbes Burnham-led Peoples National Congress (PNC) Administration has come in for increasing flack over the perceived abuse of the State Apparatus, specifically the Guyana Police Force, the Guyana Defence Force, the Guyana National Service, as well as Service Commissions among other State bodies.

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee [left) in discussion with COI counsel, Latchmie Rahmat during yesterday’s proceedings

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee (left) in discussion with COI counsel, Latchmie Rahmat during yesterday’s proceedings

Dr Gopaul, during his recollection of the use of the State machinery during the 1978 and 1980 period, told Commissioners of the use of Guyana Police Force ranks to dismantle WPA meetings, in addition to the use of private enforcers, namely members of the infamous House of Israel led by US fugitive from justice, Rabbi Washington.
Led in his evidence-in-chief by COI Counsel, Latchmie Rahamat, Dr Gopaul said, “I have not witnessed violence of that nature before unleashed on Guyanese by members of the Guyana Police Force,” even as he implicated the House of Israel. The Labour Minister, in his submission to the COI and under cross-examination, spoke of a massive WPA public meeting which was held at the Bourda Mall, where Dr Rodney, the now slain Party Leader was targeted for violence, specifically by the police.
Dr Gopaul told the COI that at the Public Meeting, none of the speakers that preceded Dr Rodney were interrupted or harassed.
But as Dr Rodney was being invited to the microphone to speak, the crowd erupted with chants of “Peoples Power! Peoples Power! No Dictator!”
According to Dr Gopaul, it was at this time that the police ranks moved in and grabbed the microphone from Dr Rodney. And the ever-rebellious Dr Rodney, using a large cardboard folded in the shape of a funnel, proceeded to use it as a loudspeaker to continue to address the crowd that had gathered.
According to Dr Gopaul, the police then began lobbing cannisters of teargas indiscriminately, causing people to scatter.
To his mind, Dr Rodney had been a clear target of “raw violence”, as there was no mistaking that the State was after him.

Though the foregoing event occurred in late 1978, it was a scenario that would repeat itself time and again as the PNC continued to target Dr Rodney.

UNCHECKED TYRANNY

Given all that he knew and had lived through during the period, Dr Gopaul, under cross-examination, told the Commissioners that when he learnt of Dr Rodney’s death, he had a strong belief that the PNC Leader (Forbes Burnham) and or ranks in the police and military had a hand in it.

By this time, he said, the country had descended into unchecked tyranny, and Dr Rodney’s death was all part of the oppression of the State against the people standing up for the rule of law.
In summarising the period 1977 to 1980, Dr Gopaul said they were the years “of massive victimisation and terror against the people of this country.”

He posited that Dr Rodney’s death in 1980 caused a setback in the movement that had been evolving against the Burnham-led government.

The working-class people of Guyana had already been weary of the 1977 strike in the sugar belt, where hundreds of people were incarcerated on trumped-up charges in relation to the burning of sugarcane in the canefields, according to the Labour Minister.

That period, he said, saw “ruthless force” being used by the Police, paramilitary forces and organisations such as the House of Israel acting against any person perceived to be a threat against the State.

“Nobody was spared,” Dr Gopaul said.
RODNEY-JAGAN ALLIANCE

Dr Gopaul, under oath, also testified to having no knowledge of the WPA amassing weapons of any sort; neither did he ever hear Dr Rodney preach of violence at any of his rallies.

 Labour Minister Dr Nanda Gopaul makes a point to the Commissioners during his evidence-in-chief

Labour Minister Dr Nanda Gopaul makes a point to the Commissioners during his evidence-in-chief

Dr Rodney, he said, was very close to the likes of respected Guyanese politicians Eusi Kwayana and the late Dr Cheddi Jagan. “And I never heard them talk about violence.”
Granted, he said, there was the usual political rhetoric and slogans like “Peoples Power!” and “King Kong must go!” But never was there any talk of violence at the rallies.
The Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee, who also took the stand yesterday, attested to Dr Rodney’s relationship with the founder of the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP), Dr Cheddi Jagan.
In fact, Minister Rohee told the Commissioners of the numerous meetings between the two popular leaders, many of which were held at the PPP’s headquarters, Freedom House.
Minister Rohee told the Commissioners at the Inquiry that while Dr Rodney and Dr Jagan both shared a fundamentally similar political ideology, they would sometimes differ on tactics.
Rohee, who currently serves as Minister with responsibility for the security sector, gave first-hand testimony of abuse at the hands of the Police, some of whom he said he still works with to this day.
Minister Rohee told the Commissioners that he is a longstanding member of the PPP, who would have been active politically for the greater part of the period under probe, and as such is capable of giving perspective to that particular era in Guyana’s political history.

PARASITIC BOURGEOISIE

During that period in Guyana’s history, he said the PNC government, through its abuse of the State apparatus, had alienated itself from the good graces of the population.

Drs Jagan and Rodney, he said, had a broad vision of what to do to bring about a change in Guyana, and as such were more or less aligned.

The broad vision, he said, was to bring about a change from the PNC Burnham-led Government, and to improve the wellbeing of the ordinary, working-class people.

According to Rohee, things had reached to a point in Guyana where it was no longer a matter of race, but rather about class.

Dr Rodney and Dr Jagan both understood that the class system had to be reconfigured, and that the working-class had to have a say in the administration of the affairs of the country. And as such, the two set about charting a course to achieving this objective, inherently securing a much-needed better life for all Guyanese.

According to Rohee, it boiled down to a matter of class, where the “bureaucratic and parasitic bourgeoisie” were oppressing the working-class.
Referencing the PNC administration, Rohee said, “They were like parasites, feeding” on the State and its resources. He was adamant that the PNC Government arrogated power onto itself illegally, through rigged elections.
Speaking of the work the WPA and PPP did together; Rohee spoke of the establishment of the Committee for Defence of Democracy, which was spearheaded by the two parties against the 1978 Referendum.
“The decision by the PNC to hold a referendum was a period we saw the unleashing of violence,” he said. In his recollection of the level of intimidation that marred the era, Rohee surmised that one in every 35 persons were armed, and pointed primarily to the Police Force, Defence Force, National Service, Peoples’ Militia and the House of Israel among the other numerous State-sponsored agents armed with illegal weapons.

 Attorney-at-Law Basil Williams examines a photocopy of a 1979 newspaper clipping before it is tendered as evidence at the inquiry

Attorney-at-Law Basil Williams examines a photocopy of a 1979 newspaper clipping before it is tendered as evidence at the inquiry

PARAMOUNTCY OF PARTY
There was a general dissatisfaction among the people of Guyana, according to Rohee, who spoke to the violation of basic human rights, inclusive of the right to live, free speech, expression and association among other freedoms.
Things had been on a downward spiral in Guyana under the Burnham policies, and as such, when Dr Rodney arrived on the local political scene, the time was ripe for the struggle and advocacy, according to the Minister, who also spoke to the principle of party paramountcy.
He explained that under the Burnham-led government, the PNC flag would be flown conspicuously alongside the Golden Arrowhead at public buildings, including the Courts.
Under party paramountcy, Rohee told the Commission, many public officials, including members of the armed forces, had to swear allegiance to the PNC.
DONALD RODNEY
The COI was adjourned as Minister Rohee was giving his testimony, and he is slated to return at a future date in order to complete his evidence-in-chief, and to undergo cross-examination.
When the Commission resumes today, it is expected that the brother of the slain WPA leader, Donald Rodney, will take the witness stand.
Dr Walter Rodney was killed instantaneously on the evening of Friday, June 13, 1980 when a bomb exploded in his lap while he was seated in the passenger seat of his Mazda Capella motorcar, PBB 2349, on John Street in the vicinity of the Georgetown Jail.

(By Gary Eleazar)

 

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

what's your point sahib?

 

That PNC was bad? That Burnham was bad? That the PNC killed Rodney?

 

Sahib

 

The PNC killed Rodney. Should the PNC be trusted ?

 

Guyanese will decide by casting their votes in May. 

 

It would be interesting to see if Guyanese care less about what happened during the brutal dictatorship PNC days. Granger put a new face on the PNC and has displayed good statesmanship and as a former Military Man, he seems very disciplined.

 

Former Military Men like yourself are disciplined and display good judgement most of the time.

 

 

 

 

FM
Last edited by Former Member

As was said from the start, Ramotar appointed the Rodney COI to get ammunition to shoot down the PNC in upcoming elections. The PPP regime has already spent over $200 million on the COI.

The PPP is holier-than-thou, digging up events of 35 years ago for a partisan advantage.

The same PPP has a violent history too.

Who killed Sash Sawh?

Who established the dreaded Phantom Gang that exterminated hundreds.

Who killed Ronald Waddell?

Who was Roger Khan's chief benefactor?

 

FM
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:

As was said from the start, Ramotar appointed the Rodney COI to get ammunition to shoot down the PNC in upcoming elections. The PPP regime has already spent over $200 million on the COI.

The PPP is holier-than-thou, digging up events of 35 years ago for a partisan advantage.

The same PPP has a violent history too.

Who killed Sash Sawh?

Who established the dreaded Phantom Gang that exterminated hundreds.

Who killed Ronald Waddell?

Who was Roger Khan's chief benefactor?

 

 

Well Gil

 

Instead of arguing about who did this and who did that, the people of Guyana will have to decide at the polls.

 

Let us see how Guyanese decide.

FM
Originally Posted by yuji22:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

what's your point sahib?

 

That PNC was bad? That Burnham was bad? That the PNC killed Rodney?

 

Sahib

 

The PNC killed Rodney. Should the PNC be trusted ?

 

Guyanese will decide by casting their votes in May. 

 

It would be interesting to see if Guyanese care less about what happened during the brutal dictatorship PNC days. Granger put a new face on the PNC and has displayed good statesmanship and as a former Military Man, he seems very disciplined.

 

Former Military Men like yourself are disciplined and display good judgement most of the time.

 

 

 

 

 

If you ever took the chance to sit down with Brig. Granger you will probably find him to be an amiable, decent, gentleman, who is eminently suitable to being President.

 

As for the PNC's term of dictatorship, you will find no defense from me for it.

 

I part company with you when you make that your positive argument for the PPP. The PPP record is one of doing less damage to Indian people. It's not such a good record if you're black. And to deny this opens us up (rightfully) to charges of intellectual dishonesty and agreement with the marginalization of black people.

 

The PPP's record is bad even by the low standards of the Anglo Caribbean.

 

I will however say that there are genuine concerns about the PNC taking power alone.

FM

~~~~~Dr Rodney and Dr Jagan both understood that the class system had to be reconfigured, and that the working-class had to have a say in the administration of the affairs of the country. And as such, the two set about charting a course to achieving this objective, inherently securing a much-needed better life for all Guyanese.~~~~

 

 

The above is so totally misleading and blatantly patronizing, that I need to respond albeit briefly.

 

During the WPA popularity, the PPP was dead, not dying, just dead!

Rodney's course was totally different from the PPP's. As a mater of fact, Rodney had little respect for the PPP.  And make no mistake, Rodney was making a bomb. 

FM
Originally Posted by yuji22:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

what's your point sahib?

 

That PNC was bad? That Burnham was bad? That the PNC killed Rodney?

 

Sahib

 

The PNC killed Rodney. Should the PNC be trusted ?

 

Guyanese will decide by casting their votes in May. 

 

It would be interesting to see if Guyanese care less about what happened during the brutal dictatorship PNC days. Granger put a new face on the PNC and has displayed good statesmanship and as a former Military Man, he seems very disciplined.

 

Former Military Men like yourself are disciplined and display good judgement most of the time.

 

 

 

 

What authority you have to make that statement,

Rodney was killed when the PNC-Burnham was in

power,to date no one knows who is the culprit.

 

The Rodney Commission is ongoing,and to make

such statement is asinine.

Django
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
Originally Posted by yuji22:
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:

what's your point sahib?

 

That PNC was bad? That Burnham was bad? That the PNC killed Rodney?

 

Sahib

 

The PNC killed Rodney. Should the PNC be trusted ?

 

Guyanese will decide by casting their votes in May. 

 

It would be interesting to see if Guyanese care less about what happened during the brutal dictatorship PNC days. Granger put a new face on the PNC and has displayed good statesmanship and as a former Military Man, he seems very disciplined.

 

Former Military Men like yourself are disciplined and display good judgement most of the time.

 

 

 

 

 

If you ever took the chance to sit down with Brig. Granger you will probably find him to be an amiable, decent, gentleman, who is eminently suitable to being President.

 

As for the PNC's term of dictatorship, you will find no defense from me for it.

 

I part company with you when you make that your positive argument for the PPP. The PPP record is one of doing less damage to Indian people. It's not such a good record if you're black. And to deny this opens us up (rightfully) to charges of intellectual dishonesty and agreement with the marginalization of black people.

 

The PPP's record is bad even by the low standards of the Anglo Caribbean.

 

I will however say that there are genuine concerns about the PNC taking power alone.

 

It is a matter of distrust between the two major races of Guyana. With information being released about the mixed race being 20 percent changes the political game all together. The Natives are approx. 10 percent.

 

Both races cling to a party which they feel rightly or wrongly will protect their interest. 

 

It is only a government of National Unity which can bring about racial harmony. 

 

I have been carefully reading your analysis on race and race issues and tend to agree on most of them but Guyana needs healing. It can begin with a National Reconciliation as they did in South Africa.

 

I want to see racial harmony as many others do but it is interesting to note that the likes of Carib and redux etc, make me cringe. The PPP, PNC and AFC have these types of monsters in their closet, they need to clean up their closets.

 

Many who accuse those who want to preserve their identity as being racist do not understand that it is up to the individuals to make a choice on their identity. It does not mean that one race is superior to the other.

 

Our fore parents kept their distinct identity intact. In Quebec, they are a distinct society according to Canadian Constitution. That is not racist.

 

I noted in one of your posts, you addressed this quite accurately about an Indian identity.

 

Guyanese need to take off their race lens and stop arguing about race and let the country move forward.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by yuji22:

It is a matter of distrust between the two major races of Guyana. With information being released about the mixed race being 20 percent changes the political game all together. The Natives are approx. 10 percent.

 

Both races cling to a party which they feel rightly or wrongly will protect their interest. 

 

It is only a government of National Unity which can bring about racial harmony. 

 

I have been carefully reading your analysis on race and race issues and tend to agree on most of them but Guyana needs healing. It can begin with a National Reconciliation as they did in South Africa.

 

I want to see racial harmony as many others do but it is interesting to note that the likes of Carib and redux etc, make me cringe. The PPP, PNC and AFC have these types of monsters in their closet, they need to clean up their closets.

 

Many who accuse those who want to preserve their identity as being racist do not understand that it is up to the individuals to make a choice on their identity. It does not mean that one race is superior to the other.

 

Our fore parents kept their distinct identity intact. In Quebec, they are a distinct society according to Canadian Constitution. That is not racist.

 

I noted in one of your posts, you addressed this quite accurately about an Indian identity.

 

Guyanese need to take off their race lens and stop arguing about race and let the country move forward.

 

Couple tings here.

 

1. I would not call Guyana's serious racial problems one of "mistrust." The racial wounds and fissures run to the very core of Guyana. We have no settled constitutional order, race based parties competing for control of an all powerful State, and an educated class that can't even agree on the precise nature of our race problems. Let's not beat about the bush and say Indos vote PPP out of love of the PPP. They do so out of a sense of tribal loyalty. The same with blacks and the PNC. I wouldn't call this "mistrust." That gives the impression we can have a nice chat and settle this misunderstanding.

 

2. A Government of National Unity will do nothing. As D2 said "elite accomodation" is not a real solution. The solution will entail a wholesale redesign of the Guyanese State and the formulation of laws and policies suitable to our habits and customs and needs so that ordinary blacks and ordinary Indos have a real stake in society and perceive the system to be fair. Quintennial elections should not feel like a Darwinian battle for survival and "ethnic honour." Elections should not be so important to us on such an intensely personal level. An Indian should not really care that a black guy is President and vice versa. Like Americans, let us vote, go to the victory party, and shrug it off the next day.

 

3. Carib and redux are not atypical of the West Indian black mindset who think that the glorious Afro-Saxon West Indies is some construct like the old states of Western Europe where a people like Indians by dint of the fact that we arrived later must take a dip in the Caribbean and shed our millennia old Indianness and be baptized as acceptable Afro-Saxons with straight hair. That fantasy didn't work in the past few decades and it's a non-starter now.

 

4. There is nothing racist about the preservation of one's identity. The Indian identity in the Caribbean has persevered in spite of myriad pressures often at the hands of officialdom for two centuries now and I expect it to continue to survive and thrive for centuries to come.

 

5. I will always condemn Indian racism where I see it. But I refuse to conflate racism and a legitimate desire of a People to preserve their ancient heritage. This goes for all peoples not just Indians.

 

6. Quebec is an excellent example of how a people removed from the ancient "motherland" cling to the uniqueness of their culture. Hell, most Quebecois (is that right?) don't believe in God but they believe in the Catholic Church because the Church is part of their heritage.

 

7. We must be careful not to conflate the preservation of Indians and Indian culture with support for the PPP and their policies which arguably disenfranchise blacks politically and economically. This makes it easy for Carib Beer et al to presume (wrongly) that an innocent desire to preserve Indian culture and heritage is part of the overall narrative of black marginalization. We must not deny facts which we find unpleasant. It makes us (rightfully) look dishonest and the conclusion is drawn that we must be racist ourselves since black marginalization is denied or excused by us.

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×