Presidential pardon enabled Donald Rodney to travel to Guyana and testify before the Commission of Inquiry

Dear Editor,

A letter, authored by Mr. Donald Rodney, published on the 27th November 2019, in the Stabroek News, refers.

In the preparatory stages of the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry into the death of Walter Rodney, because of certain requests made by the family of Dr. Rodney (to which I alluded in a previous missive in the Press) and the potential significance of Donald Rodney’s testimony to the impending Commission, I caused certain inquiries to be made.

Those inquiries produced the following:

1. that Donald Rodney was charged and placed before the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court on the 25th June 1980, for the offence of “possession of explosives without lawful authority” contrary to section 3(1) of the National Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Chapter 16:02 (now repealed);
2. the case was tried before Senior Magistrate, Norma Jackman, who found the Defendant guilty on the 26th February 1982, and sentenced him to eighteen months imprisonment;
3. on the 26th February 1982, Mr. Doodnauth Singh, Attorney-at-law, for Mr. Rodney, filed an appeal against the decision of the said learned Magistrate to the Guyana Court of Appeal;
4. strangely, on or around this same time, an appeal was also filed against the same decision of the learned Magistrate to the Full Court;
5. the Appeal filed to the Full Court came up for hearing during the year 2010 and was dismissed in July 2010, for non-appearance of both the Appellant and his Attorney-at-law.

I was advised by Counsel appointed to serve on the Commission that Donald Rodney was granted bail pending the hearing and determination of his appeal filed to the Full Court and that upon the grant of bail, Donald Rodney left the jurisdiction.

Counsel further advised that upon the dismissal of the appeal to the Full Court in July 2010, the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate was reactivated, and accordingly, were Mr. Rodney to enter the jurisdiction of Guyana, members of the Guyana Police Force would have been authorized to arrest and deposit him in jail to serve the sentence imposed.

Mr. Rodney at the time resident in Trinidad and Tobago, was so advised. He was also advised that the request for the charge to be “dismissed” or “withdrawn” was legally impossible as the charge was already heard and determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction and was, therefore, spent.

It is in those circumstances that Donald Rodney was advised that the only convenient way, in the circumstances, to rid himself of the conviction so as to permit him to travel to Guyana, to testify before the Commission, was the grant of a pardon by the Executive President.

Although I do recall Mr. Rodney’s initial objection to this course, he was pardoned by the President and he consequently travelled to Guyana, without hindrance, and testified before the Commission. All the while, I reasoned that Mr. Rodney understood that the only way he was not arrested in Guyana and made to serve the sentence was because of the Presidential Pardon.

I am now surprised to learn that he did not “accept” the Pardon. In any event, I doubt that his “acceptance” was necessary. However, I am in no doubt that he enjoyed the benefit which flowed from it.

I am aware that the Court of Appeal is currently seized of some form of challenge by Mr. Rodney to the decision, either made by the Full Court in July 2010, or, made by the learned Magistrate on 26th February 1982. If I may speculate, the most that can possibly result in the end, is a quashing of the conviction and a setting aside of the sentence. Not a “dismissal” or “withdrawal” of the charge, as Mr. Rodney misguidedly thinks.

Yours faithfully

Mohabir Anil Nandlall MP

Attorney-at-law