COMMENTARY

CGID responds to Guyana Chronicle editorial

by Rickford Burke President
Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID) 

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

The PPP government of Guyana (GOG) seems to be in epigastric distress over my condemnation of Ronald Gajraj’s appointment as Guyana’s Ambassador to India. Ronald Gajraj is Guyana’s former Minister of National Security.

He was forced to resign earlier this year over credible allegations that he spearheaded a “phantom death squad,” which allegedly executed hundreds of Afro-Guyanese men.

The Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID) has always maintained that there is circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case of criminal wrongdoing by Gajraj. Thus, on October 7, 2005, in a comment to media entities, I harshly condemned Gajraj’s appointment as Ambassador. 

Consequently, on Saturday, October 8, 2005, the state owned Guyana Chronicle Newspapers, in a partisan act, used its entire editorial space to attack CGID and me personally, on behalf of the ruling PPP. The Guyana Chronicle falls under the ministerial jurisdiction of the Office of the President. It is the mouthpiece of the ruling party and an unabashed cesspool of vilification and partisan attacks. 

The editorial suggested that CGID has no moral authority to criticize Gajraj or the GOG because I am a former aide to former President of Guyana, Mr. Hugh Desmond Hoyte, and that I am “a well-known activist of the opposition People’s National Congress/Reform.” This has been the PPP government’s mantra for the past ten years.

However, my tenure as an aide to President Hoyte is no negative credential. To the contrary, it is a mark of merit. I am most proud of my association with President Hoyte and offer no apologies. He was a progressive visionary of supreme intellect and scholarship, and one of Guyana’s greatest minds. I am pleased to have worked under his tutelage. 

The PPP government believes that anyone who worked in a PNC/R administration must be condemned to perpetual damnation and should not earn a living no where in the world. Thus they maintain an ongoing international campaign of identifying these individuals and vilifying there character. But I would have none of it. I will confront such bigotry at every instance. 

I am not a member of a political party in Guyana and am certainly no activist in New York for any political party. Whenever President Jagdeo travels to New York, the Guyana Consulate invites me to meetings with him which I do attend. I also attend PNC/R functions to which I am invited. I have been living outside of Guyana for the past thirteen years. Since then I have visited Guyana twice, once in 1993/1994 and again in 1997. I incessantly monitor what is happening in Guyana and offer periodic commentary.

However, I strongly challenge the moral basis for the Guyana Chronicle’s diatribe about partisanship. The political allegiance of the Chronicle lies deep in the bowels of the PPP. It is a bedrock, bulldog and propagandist utensil of the ruling party. Therefore the editors at the Chronicle and the office of the President must relinquish the teetering pedestal from which they attempt to lecture me about political partisanship.

Unlike the PPP puppet-master, I am Guyanese by birth. I have a right to comment on the affairs of Guyana and to demand governmental accountability. The PNC/R is not in governme! nt. The PPP is and, thus, it must be accountable to the people. 

CGID is not biased against the PPP government. Critiquing a government does not automatically translate to support for the Opposition party. Such thinking has a redolence of retardation.

In the past, CGID has criticized the Bush Administration and Caricom, as well as the governments of Haiti, Belize, Surinam, St. Kitts/Nevis, Barbados and Dominica. We have also criticized the PNC/R on many occasions. Does our criticism of these entities mean that we support the political opposition in these countries? No!

Assessing governance in Guyana is one of many initiatives on CGID’s agenda. The Institute monitors governance in the entire Caribbean region. There are far more inspiring and intellectual sound governments to engage, than the GOG. Hence the Chronicle and ruling party will be disappointed to note that CGID has other things on its plate.

Of CGID’s seventeen Board members, only seven are Guyanese. The non-Guyanese members have no interest in the politics of Guyana, and are slightly bemused by the attention the government and the Guyana Chronicle continue to amass on CGID. 

Had the Gajraj affair not been such a serious atrocity, had the Chronicle not issued a vile threat and not attempt to impugn my right to free speech, I may have viewed the editorial with great hilarity.

But, the editorial was an indefatigable diatribe of vile, poignant parodies and plantation politics that warrant stark contention. Similarly, the author’s characteristic lack of erudition, biased reasoning and incongruous conjectures must be vigorously disputed. 

A passage of the editorial read, “Firing away from his comfort in the USA, he claimed that the government has "embarrassed" the Guyanese people by "defying the nation and the international community" to have appointed Mr. Gajraj to "an ambassadorship" after his links to a “phantom death squad.”

However, the author seems to have a challenge of the intellectual kind. My statement made no mention of a “phantom death squad” nor linked Gajraj to a “phantom death squad.” It is the Chronicle in its zeal to defend Mr. Gajraj that made this connection.

My comment to the press was that the appointment of a “crook with irrefutable links to criminal activity.... is an abomination and an embarrassment to the Guyanese people.” 

The Chronicle newspaper, which supports Gajraj’s appointment, anxiously declared that a Commission of Inquiry, which only inquired into whether there was evidence of Gajraj’s connection to the extra-judicial killings of persons, “cleared” Gajraj of “criminal culpability.”

However, this assertion is false. The Commission never “cleared” Gajraj. The Commission merely stated that no such evidence against Gajraj had been presented. But who did the Chronicle expect to appear in public to present evidence against Gajraj?

Mr. George Bacchus, the phantom squad whistleblower and self-confessed financier of the killing machine, was brutally gunned down hours before he was due to testify in Court. 

Shortly before he was killed, George Bacchus complained of being threatened and intimidated, and claimed he was offered one million dollars to leave Guyana. This offer was allegedly made through a relative of a PPP Member of Parliament.

Bacchus’ brother was also murdered and other potential witnesses were ostensibly threatened or abducted. The intent of these nefarious actions was to warn anyone who came forward that they would pay with their life. 

The editorial statement also said that “Mr. Burke's statement reeks with slander” and that Gajraj “may wish to pursue his own action against the calumny heaped on him in the name of a 'democracy institute'.”

My only response to this proposition is that it sounds very palatable, since many people would frenziedly seize the opportunity to resolve this matter in a court of law and to interrogate the suspect under oath. I therefore encourage Mr. Gajraj to come to New York and file a lawsuit, although he might first want to check-in with the US Embassy and the DEA to insure safe passage. 

Further, I note with interest the Chronicle’s implied threat which read “Burke firing away from his comfort in the USA.” Is the Chronicle intimating that the only reason I am not made “uncomfortable” for being critical of the government is because I live in the USA? What would the PPP government do, send in its “death squad” to get me? The GOG nor its cohorts cannot intimidate nor entice me. I am no Mark Benschop!

The Chronicle has not proffered a single countervailing argument to the factual contentions of my comment. Instead it sought to smear me. But no attempt at smear, threat or intimidation will deter CGID from pursuing its mission.

The office of the President and the Guyana Chronicle are free to engage CGID in an intellectual conversation on the intrinsic worth of its position, as well as on the merit and soundness of my comment. CGID is not in the business of character vilification, but will expose criminality and wrongdoing. In doing so we cannot be cowed by bullying tactics, threats or coercion. 

The government’s lack of interest in investigating allegations of the existence of “death squads” and the hundreds of murders, which dominated the news for the past three years, is baffling. There is a consensus view in Guyana and the International community that all of these murders were committed by the “death squads.”

One therefore wonders, in the name of humanity, how can the government continue to defend Mr. Gajraj, but refuse to inquire into the wholesale killing of its citizens? What type of government would continue to operate with normalcy, while murder by “death squad” ! becomes pervasive, unless it is an agent of this iniquitous enterprise? 

The international community supports the position of CGID and has expressed grave concerns about Mr. Gajraj’s connection to and involvement with known criminals. The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have all revoked Mr. Gajraj’s visa and have banned him from traveling to their respective countries.

On April 12, 2005, Spokesman for the US Department of State, Ambassador Richard Boucher, said, “the United States is concerned by the Government of Guyana’s decision to reinstate former Home Minister Ronald Gajraj…. A Guyanese commission of inquiry looking into his links to the so-called "phantom death squad" has found serious procedural irregularities in his official conduct related to his involvement with individuals who allegedly carried out extra-judicial killings…. We believe significant questions remain unanswered regarding his involvement in serious criminal activities…” 

Ever since Ronald Gajraj assumed the National Security portfolio, his Ministry has been embroiled in allegations of unlawful issuance of gun licenses to questionable individuals. One such person was Alex Williams, who emerged as the leader of the “phantom death squad.”

Williams, who was himself murdered in 2004, gained notoriety as a cold-blooded murderer when, on August 8, 2002, he shot and killed food vendor, Rodwell Ogle, in full public view. The evidence against Williams was conclusive. Thus on September 12, 2002, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of Guyana instructed the Police to charge Williams with murder.

Subsequently, in May 2003, Alex Williams wrote to the then Police Commissioner, Floyd McDonald, requesting an upgrade of his firearm license. Williams’ application to the Police already bore the approval of then Minister of National Security, Ronald Gajraj, under his handwriting and signature. The Police Commissioner followed Gajraj’s directive and issued a letter to Williams, dated July 18, 2003, approving the upgrade of his firearm from a .32 pistol to a 9 mm pistol.

At the time Minister Gajraj and the Police Commissioner approved the upgrade, they were aware that eleven months prior, Axel! Williams had shot and killed Rodwell Ogle, and that the DPP had, on September 12, 2002, instructed the Police to charge him with murder.

When the existence of the “phantom death squad” became public and Alex Williams was identified as one of the leaders, the media confronted Mr. Gajraj in order to ascertain his relationship with the alleged killer. Gajraj’s comments were contradictory and esoteric, and he depicted himself as a congenital liar.

First he denied knowing Williams and claimed that he had no knowledge of a squad. He then admitted to having conversations with Axel Williams but said that they were “passing references to inquiries about a firearm license." He was then confronted with telephone records showing that both he and Williams frequently called each other very late at nights and at wee hours in the morning. 

The records proved that Williams frequently called Gajraj at his government office, private residence and cell phones. There were specific periods when the telephone communication between the two peaked. One such period was from November 24, 2003 to December 6, 2003.

Throughout this time, Williams called Gajraj at least 118 times. During this period the “phantom death squad” allegedly conducted dozens of executions. It is this incontrovertible evidence that forced Gajraj to admit to knowing Williams, but then claimed that his telephone conversations with Williams involved national security matters which he could not divulge.

In 2003, during the period that telephone records connect Gajraj to Williams, the death squad is alleged to have committed the following murders: On November 23, 2003, Trevor Manson-Hing and Kwesi Williams were shot dead. On November 17, 2003, businessmen Michael Dublin, Mark Cato and Trevor Jarvis were shot dead. On November 2, 2003, Shawn Skeete was shot and killed. On November 1, 2003, Troy Francis Hinds was gunned down. On October 24, 2003, Andre Ettiena was abducted. His skeletal remains were found on November 25. On October 24, 2003, Phillip Sergeant was kidnapped in public view and has not been seen or heard from since. On September 19, 2003, Clive McLean and Clive Savory were abducted and later found shot to death. On September 17, 2003, Ronald Garnett was shot to death. On September 6, 2003, Eion Forte was shot and killed. On September 2, 2003, Andre Williams called “Dougla Andre” was gunned down. 

These are fourteen of hundreds of other killings and executions, most of which were committed during the periods when telephone records show Alex Williams to be in continuous contact with Minister of National Security, Ronald Gajraj.

It therefore strains credulity for Gajraj to tell the world that he knows nothing about these murders. What did he discuss with Alex Williams during hundreds of telephone conversations? Why was the Minister of National Security having hundreds of late night and early morning conversations with someone whom the Chief Prosecutor had instructed be charged with murder and who should have been in jail awaiting trial for murder?

These are questions that remain unanswered. Given the evidence I have set forth, it is easy to conclude that Gajraj is a threat to public safety. 

The Chronicle is aware that Mr. Gajraj was prosecuted and convicted for crimes in the past (although he later received judicial relief on technical grounds). CGID’s position is that Gajraj’s appointment as Guyana’s Ambassador is an abomination. It is a calculated move to grant him diplomatic immunity.

The government of India should be equally condemned for agreeing to grant cover to a person under the pall of complicity in! heinous criminal activity. Clearly the government wanted to post Gajraj out of Guyana before next year’s elections. However it could not risk doing so without the safeguard of diplomatic immunity. 

As I have said before, no democratic society can condone murder and extra-judicial killings under the subterfuge of national security. The government of Guyana must understand that this issue will never go away as long as these murders remain uninvestigated.

I anticipate that the GOG will now engineer a nasty campaign against CGID and me, so let the villains come forth.

   Back...

  Most popular articles: viewed, printed and e-mailed

  Printable version