I would like to offer some critical comments on a response by WPA executive, Mr. Desmond Trotman [ please note: link provided by LOSP web site ] (writing as convener of the People's Movement for Justice - PMJ) to the indictment of Dr. David Hinds, who accused many of the constituent members of the People's Movement for Justice (PMJ) of double standards in relation to their concern for the Rule of Law. Dr. Hinds' point was that those now driven by the need to expose the Gajraj affair so as to protect the Rule of Law, didn't show similar anxiety when the Mash Day escapees and their violent acolytes were robbing, kidnapping and killing innocent Guyanese. As a social commentator who investigated the Buxton conspiracy and penned sixteen columns on it for the Kaieteur News and the Chronicle, I have intelligence data that high-ranking persons in the PNC and the WPA had contacts with unsavoury elements in Buxton and in fact supported what the gunmen were doing. Such people should never be allowed to speak on the Rule of Law which they despicably disrespected during the reign of terror emanating from Buxton. But more importantly, society should ostracize them for their heinous political opportunism
My commentary here will focus on four areas: (1), the questionable invitation process used by organizers of the PMJ (2), the miserably incompetent reply of Mr. Trotman to Dr. Hinds' insightful accusation (3), the new role of the WPA's executive, Dr. Clive Thomas, (4) WPA's adamant refusal to discipline its executive member, Tacuma Ogunseye for consistent public support (which is now public knowledge) for the violent robbers of Buxton last year.
The choice of Mr. Trotman as convener of the PMJ was pathetic to say the least. How the victims of the Buxton killers feel about this is something PMJ leaders should ascertain. I am saying in clear, simple language, Mr. Trotman, as an executive member of the WPA, took part in WPA's internal meetings that were sympathetic to what went on in Buxton. Is this the same Trotman that is now heading an organization calling for adherence to the Rule of Law? But let's see how impartial Mr. Trotman is. He said he sent 34 invitations to organizations and individuals "to be part of the process" of the PMJ. What criteria did he and his fellow Rule of Law advocates use? Trotman said he invited Mr. Vic Puran as an individual and Mr. Christopher Ram in his capacity as a social commentator. Fair enough! But what about me? I met the criteria more than most of Mr. Trotman's invitees because I have condemned both the Buxton conspiracy and the Gajraj affair. But Mr. Trotman may have been uncomfortable with the intelligence data I have on the WPA.
I will quickly dispense with the second dimension of my analysis. The PMJ should employ a competent PR spokesperson. Dr. Hinds' point is invincible. Two phantom squads appeared as a reaction to the Buxton conspiracy with their own motive. One was administered by Minister Gajraj on behalf of the Government of Guyana with logistical support from the police force. This was to stem the loss of credibility, and eventual power of the state. The other cabal was funded by businessmen to save themselves. I think in common sense philosophy this is called "self preservation." Mr. Trotman failed to address the seminal point in Hinds's adumbration of the refusal of many, who are now in the PMJ, to see the connection between the Buxton conspiracy and the breakdown in the Rule of Law. He foolishly endangers the worthy purpose of the PMJ by saying this is something "the PMJ may want to examine at some point in time." Nonsense! It must be looked at right now!
Professor Thomas denounced the anti-terrorism legislation and the anti-kidnapping bill at a special retreat of the PNC held at Ocean View and in his Stabroek News column [ please note: link provided by LOSP web site ] of March 9, 2003, a column he said he devoted to Yohance Douglas. He didn't see it fit to devote another column to Gavin Narine, gunned down in Nathoo's bar along with six others by the escapees including the gunman that a leader in the WPA loves to refer to by his first name, Rommel. For those readers who are interested in my analytical denunciation of this new role of Thomas, I refer to my Kaieteur News columns of March 9, 14 and 16 last year.
Thomas, according to his WPA colleague, Desmond Trotman, mounted the PMJ platform as a representative of the Institute of Development Studies at UG. Now this is interesting. Thomas represented the WPA at a meeting called by the Civil Society group that was engaged in bringing Jagdeo and Corbin together in talks last year. Then he attended the PNC retreat at Ocean View. It is yet to be determined in what capacity he went there. Now at the PMJ process, he spoke in the name of the Faculty of Social Sciences, the same area I work in at UG. Who delegated that power to Thomas? If Thomas represented UG, then I want to be on record as saying that I reject him as UG's delegate to the PMJ. I support the cause of the PMJ and I hope for its continued success but I cannot accept Dr. Thomas representing my workplace. There should be a more objective and independent delegate from UG.
Finally, I am calling on the PMJ to reject any form of presence of the WPA within its ranks if the WPA does not condemn the inflexible position of Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye that the murderous escapees and their psychopathic orgy of violence were freedom fighters. Here are the words of Tacuma Ogunseye in the Stabroek News of March 22, 2003; "...the evidence will also show that the African Guyanese armed resistance has killed policemen, phantom mercenaries, informers and persons in the wrong place at the time of an attack." Mr. Ogunseye sits in the executive of the WPA with Trotman and Thomas and is openly admitting that there are people in Guyana who have killed and are killing policemen, and these killers he refuses to name as criminals when in fact they were criminals and their surviving friends continue to rob and rape East Coast villagers. Yet Trotman and Thomas are silent on this anti-human, terrorist demagoguery of a leading WPA activist who is within the midst and ranks of the PMJ. What moral right do some people in the PMJ have to call upon others to save the Rule of Law? The answer is none whatsoever.