With assassination, the Attorney General only touched the surface

Jun 16, 2021 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,

The Media has been fulsome with reports on Attorney General Nandlall’s very robust statement in Parliament, when he altered Rodney’s Death Certificate from ‘unemployed’ to Professor and cause of death, to assassination. Sections of the media have also for years been pointing accusing fingers in a particular direction, and I am a little surprised that those who ought to have some facts have not been seeking to set the record straight.
If you use the word ‘assassination,’ as a legal person, the Hon. Attorney General should be able with the same gusto say who is the assassin, based on evidence that is credible, and convincing. We look forward to similar treatment for the death of the likes of Ronald Waddell, Courtney Crum Ewing, Minister Satyadeow ‘Sash’ Sawh, and the Bacchus’ brothers from Princes Street, Lodge.
But Editor, here is the problem, hypocrisy and the failure of those who ought to know better to explain much more of the Rodney saga that we have heard of so far. First, why did universities in Jamaica and universities in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania said goodbye to Rodney. Senior politicians in Tanzania did say that Rodney seemed interested in pursuing the path of a violent revolution. Next, is it true that Dublin and his colleagues were shot by the police after they had purchased rifles from a certain source? Whether they were set up or not is another matter. They say, “when you play with fire, you get burn.”
After several enquiries, and statements by those who were confident that their understanding of what happened on that fateful night in June 1980, was all that there was to know. But so far, no one has explained what Rodney was doing outside of the prison wall, to ask, as they claimed, to test a walkie-talkie.
This is so ridiculous for the leader of what was a large group to himself, to test a walkie-talkie, an instrument that can be bought over the counter in any Radio Shack or electronic store. Next question, why did he not take with him that night, a senior member of the WPA, but opted for his dear beloved brother? Only he and maybe those who knew the real story could answer. But most worrisome is that we are ignoring the logic and sequence of events as written by Gregory Smith, who described the whole incident as an accident.
Did Rodney know he was carrying a lethal weapon, or was it a harmless walkie-talkie, which young boys and girls can test and operate? If it were a weapon or a bomb, was it to blow up the walls of the prison to cause confusion? Are the people of Guyana being consumed by yet another propaganda blitz? Every story is many-sided. After 41 years, we may yet learn of the real story, but use this strategy of a great academic for pure political purposes.

Yours truly,
Nigel Bacchus