REFLECTIONS AND APOLOGIES

To: All Ex-Detainees of the PRG

From: Some Former Leaders of NJM

Dear Fellow-Grenadian,

This letter was written over a period of several weeks; a product of many months of contemplation, and thirteen years of reflection. It was written prior to the October 2^nd 1996 interview at the Richmond Hill Prisons. However we felt it fit to make a few changes and additions to the original draft of the letter bearing in mind the interview and subsequent developments.

As you may well imagine we have had to ponder long and hard over the contents of this letter. We are fully conscious of the fact that in writing we may be approaching a veritable minefield of emotions. In the final analysis we have come to the conclusion that we should just speak from the heart. This is not to say that there are no differences of opinion and of degrees of emphasis among us on this and that. That is only natural. Thus, even more, we do not expect you to agree with us in all we say and believe. But be assured we speak with conviction.

Although addressed to the ex-detainees we felt the need to address certain other matters which though going beyond the Detainee Question are more than tangentially related to you. We crave your indulgence in this regard.

WE RECOGNISE AND APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR SUFFERING

Over the last several years we have become acutely conscious of the suffering you political detainees experienced during the four and a half years of the Revolution.

We have heard some of you complain that to this day many people do not recognise your suffering; pretend that you never suffered during the years of the Revolution; that the Revolution did no wrong; or that you only got what you deserved. We can well understand the agony such expressions and perceptions cause you even today.

One of the reasons why we are moved to write this letter is because we feel that we have a moral duty to recognise the fact that you suffered and suffered unjustly during the years of the Revolution. We fully appreciate and recognise the hardships and sufferings you experienced on account of the denial of your freedom over varying periods up to four and a half years, the separation from your families; the sufferings inflicted on family members and relatives on account of your plight, the break up of your families in some cases; the psychological damage to your children and spouses; the loss of property, loss of earnings; psychological pressure arising from the uncertainty as to the length of detention; and the psychological and physical hardships and deprivations generally attendant to prison life.

We believe and recognise that those of us who were leaders during the years of the Revolution were, as part of the leadership collectively responsible for your suffering and must fully accept such responsibility. Thus we feel that the least we can do is to express to you our profound regrets and embarrassment and offer you our sincere and unreserved apologies as a minimal form of atonement. The truth is that we have wanted to do this several years now. But as you would appreciate saying sorry does not come easily in our West Indian culture. Still, some of us who were earmarked for execution in July 1991 made efforts to record our regrets and apologies during what we believed to be our last hours. In that way we obtained the comfort of knowing that we had, even though as a last testament, taken steps to discharge our moral responsibility.

YOUR SUPPORT IN OUR DARKEST HOURS

It is now over 13 years since we have been behind bars. And as you may well know and imagine it has not been easy for us. However these years have not been a litany of woes. They have also amounted to a period of growth: emotionally, intellectually and spiritually. None of us has been untouched by this process of growth. We believe that we can honestly say that we are now much more mature and much wiser than 13 years ago.

This maturity and wisdom has come about on account of the deep reflection and introspection we have been able to do. Reflection on our individual lives; on decisions and choices we made in the past; on our country; on the 1979-83 revolutionary process; and on the events of October 1983.

We have discovered through reflection and also through contact with some of you, that adversity and suffering can bring the very best out of many of us. We have been not only amazed but touched and humbled by the fact that many of you who have real cause to hate us, having suffered during the years of the reign of the Revolution, are the ones who are prepared to forgive and indeed to empathise with us.

We will forever remember that in the very difficult days of July-August 1991, when frantic moves were afoot to execute some of us, people like Mr Leslie Pierre and Mr Lloyd Noel were very vocal against the impending hangings. Their efforts, we are convinced, played a decisive role in over powering the ‘hanging party’ inside and outside the government, and in facilitating the courageous actions of Sir Nicholas Brathwaite, Mrs Joan Purcell and others. We are also aware of the public positions in opposition to the hangings taken by Mr Maurice Patterson and also Mr Errol Maitland. During that period and in the years since we experienced the humanity of Commissioner of Prisons, Mr Winston Courtney, a man who we regard as a remarkable Grenadian. We have heard Mr Winston Whyte publicly pronounce his willingness to forgive and reconcile. We have been surprised and touched by the public statement of Mr Clem Langdon calling for forgiveness and amnesty in relation to us. Mr Teddy Victor has been a regular visitor of ours, bringing words of encouragement and support. And we have been deeply touched by his attitude. We have also come in contact with Mr Raymond De Souza and Mr Osbert James. We have been touched by their empathy. And we have come across Kennedy Budhlall, Ras Nang Nang, Reginald Phillip, Kade Layne and many more; and their lack of bitterness has impressed us. On a number of occasions Mr Jerry Romain has accompanied Bishop Sidney Charles on New Years Day to fellowship with prisoners, including us.

OUR COMMON BOND

This remarkable attitude of forgiveness and empathy has served as a great example and guide to us and has enabled us to better respond to and put in perspective the wrongs which we ourselves have suffered over the 13 years of incarceration.

We are also conscious that prison has bonded us in many other ways. We have been living for the last 13 years in the same cells which you occupied. Some of the graffiti inscribed by some of you are still with us. We share many of the utensils and other facilities you shared. We shared Father Leavy as spiritual guide. We have been both inspired by his humanity, optimism, honesty, understanding and wisdom. We shared the book, Man’s Search for Meaning, the one written by the psychiatrist, Dr Frankel, about his experience in a Nazi concentration camp, and tips on how he coped. Teddy sent us that book in 1991. He told us that it was widely read within the detainee community and that it proved a source of strength. For many of us it was a virtual lifeline, providing strength, courage and hope in the face of immense odds. Also, Teddy always says whenever he visits the prison to fellowship, that being within the walls is a special experience. Lloyd also spoke of that same special feeling, several months ago on a visit to participate in a religious service. In fact both Teddy and Lloyd have said to those visiting along with them, that only those who have experienced the walls from the inside could truly understand the feeling. The truth is that those walls reflect a spiritual bond between us. They breathe your spirit every day. And they will breathe ours together with yours for the next hundred years.

Through all our reflection we have come to see you as individuals with names, with families and relatives and even idiosyncrasies, instead of as ‘counters’, ‘destabilizers’ etc. It was Martin Luther King Jr who in modern times most eloquently emphasised the predominant importance of character. We have truly come to appreciate that, ultimately, it matters little the political label or outlook a person may carry at a particular time. What matters most is the ‘contents of the character’ of the individual.

And so we have had to seek answers; to ask ourselves why? Why did we take the course of imprisoning you during the days of the Revolution? We think there were reasons though not excuses.

THE CONTEXT OF YOUR UNJUST TREATMENT

A: THE MANNER OF TAKING POWER

In the first place, the fact that we were forced to take power by unconstitutional means shaped many of our actions and decisions in the first 6 months of the Revolution. We believed in and were guided by the view expressed in the preamble to the 1776 American Declaration of Independence that when a people are left with no alternative it is their God-given and inalienable right to forcibly remove their oppressors. It was this right which, in our view, was exercised by the NJM and Grenadian masses in 1979.

Still, we venture to say that, with great maturity, we recognise that it is always a misfortune for a country when its people are left with no alternative but to resort to force to change their government. Such a course of action is bound to result in dislocations: in hardships for many people, including some wholly innocent ones; in the suspension of constitutional rights; in arrest, injury and loss of life. And such situations are pregnant with the possibility for abuse. The responsibility falls on those who have assumed power in the name of the people to display the wisdom and exercise the necessary restraint to minimise the dislocation and abuse. We did not always measure up to this challenge.

B: THE COLD WAR

Secondly and more importantly, we believe that the existence of the Cold War at the time distorted the politics of our country as it did that of many others. This was the background against which the Revolution unfolded.

I: Achievements of the Revolution and its Consequences

No one can seriously deny the enormous social and economic achievements recorded by the Revolution in just four and a half years. The House Repair, Low Income Housing, Community Centres and Medical Clinics construction programmes; the Primary Health Care, Milk Feeding, School Books and Uniforms, Free Secondary and CPE programmes; establishing NCB, GBC, NIS, MNIB, GRC, NTS, Agro Industries: fruit and vegetable, coffee, and fish processing; the Eastern Main Road (Phase One), Farm and Feeder Roads, Sandino, Stone Crushing and Asphalt Mixing Plants’ facilities; Electricity Expansion in Grenada and Carriacou and the Electrification of Petit Martinique; and Maternity, Trade Union Recognition, and other social legislation, are all examples.

Indeed, by 1983, the PRG was engaged in 164 construction projects simultaneously. All those achievements and successes caused our people to glow with pride, dignity, and a sense of purpose as the Revolution captured their imagination and that of large sections of the Caribbean people. At the same time the triumphs of the Revolution instilled and reinforced in us, as leaders, that sense of purpose and mission we carried with us when we risked our lives on March 13^th 1979.

II: The US attitude and our response

At the same time, however, there was the U.S. It is an indisputable fact that the Government of the U.S. for ideological reasons wanted to overthrow the Grenada Revolution from its inception. Grenada was seen by the U.S. Government as a mere piece on the Cold War chess board. The U.S. Government obviously had its great power concerns and fears. And admittedly the leadership of the Revolution was immature and unrealistic in our reaction to the attitude of the U.S. Government.

But we as young revolutionaries on a mission of transforming our country, a mission supported by the overwhelming majority of the Grenadian people, were not prepared to allow any foreign power to dictate to us in any way, to hold us back.

We perceived that the U.S. would attempt to organise internal resistance backed up by external threats to achieve the objective of overthrowing the Revolution. And for this view we had the Iranian (1953), Guatemalan (1959), Guyanese (1964), Chilean (1973) and Jamaican (1976 and 1980) precedents. In this context we were morbidly afraid of internal opposition: seeing the hand and mind of the U.S. Government and its agencies in and behind every manifestation of internal dissent. This state of mind which quickly spread to virtually the entire population, resulted in an atmosphere of permanent combat alarm or state of emergency; in a siege mentality. This siege mentality was fed by provocations taking violent forms by some political detainees such as the Queen’s Park bombing of June 19^th 1980. In this siege atmosphere the civil and human rights of those who opposed or even disagreed with us, sadly, counted for little. We just did not have the maturity and wisdom at the time to recognise that many who dissented did not do so because they were stooges of the U.S. Government, CIA agents or unpatriotic Grenadians; but because of their concerns about the non-existence of checks and balances; and because they felt, correctly so, that as citizens, they had a right to freedom of expression, and to participate in the political process.

We just did not have it at the time to recognise that if the Revolution were to succeed in the medium and long term, if it were to retain its liberating and spiritual power, then we had to find a way to combine revolution with democracy; to combine the undoubted social and economic gains with political democracy. Not sham political democracy, but genuine political democracy, entailing respect for the civil rights and liberties of the citizens, and free elections in a genuinely free atmosphere. There was no way the Revolution could have truly and ultimately established its right to reign as of right. No other way it could have evolved from being a fleeting experiment into a permanent feature of the Grenadian political and constitutional landscape, particularly given the limitations of size, resources, and the external threat. But to have successfully combined revolution with political democracy in the years of the Cold War would have required a level of maturity and wisdom that was beyond us at the time. Arguably, no country has successfully achieved this combination in the 20^th Century.

Though you were undoubted victims of the siege atmosphere and siege mentality we have referred to, ultimately, we the revolutionaries and all Grenada were victims.

The truth is that the October 1983 events which finally led to the downfall of the Revolution, cannot be divorced from the siege atmosphere which developed and existed over most of the four and a half years. Sadly, many in their eagerness to find heroes and villains, saints and devils, to lay blame and point fingers, thirteen years later, have not yet come to appreciate that.

Outside of that environment the political differences which emerged within the NJM would not have ended in a violent confrontation and such terrible tragedy. At the very worst such differences would have resulted in a split in the NJM in the same way the NNP split when PM Blaize broke off and formed the TNP after losing the leadership of the NNP to Dr Mitchell. It is part of the normal democratic process for parties all over the world to occasionally decide, by vote of its membership or delegates, to change its leaders or its leadership structure. Unfortunately this sometimes results in splits. However, in a democratic and normal environment, these differences never spill over into violent confrontations. It is just not conceivable that outside of the context of that siege atmosphere that Fort Rupert (Fort George) would have been overrun and seized by the civilian crowd on October 19^th 1983. After all, in 1973-74, for example, the Grenadian masses spearheaded by the NJM, marched in the streets day after day, for months, in an effort to bring down the Gairy government; yet not even a small out-district police station was ever entered upon.

The more we reflect on it, the more we realise that on that fateful day, some of us were destined to die. If things had unfolded differently and the armed crowd at Fort Rupert had gained the upper hand, there is no doubt in our minds that some or all of us now presently in prison would have been killed. We are not saying that Maurice would have ordered that. That would have happened despite and in spite of him. Things had just gone too far out of hand.

WE APOLOGIZE TO THE ENTIRE GRENADIAN PEOPLE

But this belief in no way mitigates the pain and grief we feel as we reflect on those tragic events. We are clear in our minds that those of us who where leaders and survived have to accept full political and moral responsibility for the deaths of Maurice and all those who died on October 19^th 1983. As part of the collective leadership of the Revolution we were responsible for creating the atmosphere in which the crisis unfolded in the manner it unfolded and climaxed. Thus we have to bear the blame. Those soldiers who were actually involved in the tragic events, not to mention those who have been framed, were victims. Their misfortune was that they were the ones on the spot. (And some of those framed were not even on spot). The leaders of the Revolution were the ones really at fault. We were the ones who created the political and psychological climate and framework outside of which there could and would have been no October Tragedy. It was our decisions and choices, strategy and tactics over the four and half years, which created the siege atmosphere. And it was this atmosphere which provided the fertile ground upon which political differences giving rise to a political problem and crisis could so quickly and catastrophically degenerate into a military situation, placing the country on the brink of civil war.

In the particular case of Bernard Coard, as he has already stated publicly, he is of the view that as one of the two leaders of the Revolution around whom the leadership dispute was centred, over and beyond the responsibility he bears as a member of the collective leadership, ultimate and full personal responsibility for the October Tragedy lies on his shoulders. This is a heavy burden which Bernard has stated that he has borne for the past 13 years and will bear for the rest of his life.

We know that the demise of the Revolution has dashed many dreams. Thus we understand the frustration and anger of the Grenadian people arising out of these dashed expectations and feelings of betrayal on account of the tragedy and defeat of the Revolution. While we believe that all the leaders of the Revolution were collectively at fault and contributed to its demise; we fully appreciate and accept that those who survived must bear the cross. This is why we have borne for the past 13 years while imprisoned, and shall always bear, the enormous burden of feeling responsible, morally responsible, for all the events which took place in October 1983. And it is also on this basis that we most profoundly apologise, to all the victims and sufferers and their families, to the families of all those who died and to the entire Grenadian people, including members of the NJM itself, the members of the PRA, militia, youth, women’s, farmers’ and workers’ organisations (all who believed in us and relied on us to positively transform Grenada economically and socially).

MORAL RESPONSIBILTY VERSUS CRIMINAL LIABILITY

However, while we accept full moral and political responsibility, criminal liability is something completely different.

Some people have genuine difficulty understanding the difference between moral responsibility for something and criminal responsibility for it. Let us look, not at a parallel situation but an analogy: let us suppose that we as parents neglect our children, show no love; in some cases physically and psychologically abuse them, and even throw them out on the streets. When our children turn to a life of crime, we cannot be accused of either committing the crimes or ordering our children to commit them. Although unwittingly, we created the climate, the context, the environment, the conditions for such crimes to be committed. We are therefore responsible in the most profound of senses: we are morally responsible for the committal of those crimes by our children. It would however be an obscenity for a prosecutor to manufacture evidence in order to claim that we committed the crimes or ordered our children to commit those crimes and in that way convict us for them; so as to have an excuse for imposing the sanctions of the criminal law, be it imprisonment or death by hanging.

THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY TO KILL ANYONE

In the specific case of the October 1983 events, criminal liability would entail that the Central Committee conspired or otherwise agreed that Maurice et al must be killed; and that those who actually pulled the triggers were acting as agents of the Central Committee in so doing.

The fact that the NJMCC may have (a) unwittingly sparked the political crisis by the joint leadership proposal and then (b) mishandled it, resulting in things getting out of hand, to the point of erupting into a military situation, is not sufficient to ground criminal liability. The criminal law and criminal liability requires more. In the specific case it requires the existence of a criminal conspiracy i.e. a conspiracy to kill.

We categorically deny that there was any such conspiracy. The events on Fort Rupert were not planned. Things developed spontaneously because the situation got out of hand.

THAT’S WHY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE CONSPIRACY

But there is an additional point here. We deny that there was any conspiracy. And that is the truth. Others, including the prosecutors in our case, say there was a conspiracy, and that on that basis we are criminally liable. They are clearly entitled to their opinions. However to move from (a) the stage of being entitled to a political opinion, to (b) the stage of justification of the application of the sanctions of the criminal law – death or imprisonment – it is not sufficient that those with a contrary view simply insist. They must prove.

We assert that to this day there is not one shred of credible evidence to show that as leaders we conspired to kill anyone or that the Central Committee of the NJM ordered the killing of anyone. Not one shred! This despite the fact that there was a court process lasting over 7 years and costing tens of millions of dollars. The reason for this omission is very simple. There is no evidence of any conspiracy because was no conspiracy.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A FAIR HEARING

Yet, despite the lack of evidence, we were sentenced to death; and we have been denied our liberties for all 13 years.

It is well established under the law and constitution of Grenada, that the state is under obligation to provide everyone facing criminal charges with a fair hearing. It is also well established under the law that it is for the state to prove its charges beyond reasonable doubt. And there are well-established and indeed sacrosanct procedures with regard to admissibility of evidence, etc, for proving guilt.

But to this day we have not been provided with even the semblance not to mention the substance of a fair hearing. Instead we were condemned and convicted long before we were tried in court. Convicted and condemned by the press; by way of the most vicious propaganda campaign ever unleashed in the English Speaking Caribbean.

Once the damage had been done, after the population had been saturated with prejudice against us, making it impossible to find a jury to take an objective view of the facts, there followed a trial. One replete with errors of natural justice, law and constitution, as even some of you have pointed out.

Then came the appeal process which normally should have corrected the errors of the trial. But this process was subverted by the payment of over $3 million EC to the Justices of Appeal as borne out by the answer to a question in the Senate from Mr Dereck Knight QC. That sum carried the mistakable stench of a bribe. No wonder that, to this day more than 5 years after the Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of the court of trial, despite repeated requests from our counsel, the Judges have not yet delivered a written Judgement stating their reasons for upholding the convictions. They are not fools. They know exactly what they did. They know only too well that they cannot provide any reasons in law for upholding the convictions. They know they just did a job on us. And that a written judgement cannot stand up to scrutiny.

And finally, to complete the ‘legal plot’ against us, there have been various manoeuvres, including the passage of a law, aimed at debarring us from having our case re-opened, to be fairly determined, so as to obtain justice according to law.

WE THANK THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE CALLED FOR OUR FREEDOM

And yet such has been the success of the propaganda campaign against us that some people speak as though it is a mortal sin to mention the idea of freeing the seventeen political prisoners. Sadly, even some who shouted ‘Revolution’ together with us have been cowed and appear to be afflicted by this perception. Amidst all this we cannot fail to note the public positions taken by Lloyd Noel, Leslie Pierre, and Clem Langdon. We are thankful to them for this. They have advocated that the Seventeen be freed on grounds of good behaviour, humanitarian considerations and national reconciliation. We also thank the many of you who have made private appeals for our freedom to those in authority.

We firmly believe that even outside of these grounds as numerated by Messrs Leslie Pierre et al, we are legally entitled to have the convictions against us set aside and to be freed unconditionally. Moreover we are unshakeably convinced that this position of ours will be vindicated in a court of Law someday.

You know what it is to have hope and faith; to maintain a positive outlook even in the face of apparent insurmountable odds. So you will understand us when we say that we are certain the day will come when we will be free again to reunite with our families and loved ones, to pick up the pieces and get on with our lives. Most of us want to do so outside of Grenada so that we can have some emotional space to continue and complete the long process of healing.

And while we will always be prepared to assist our country in whatever way possible (e.g. by mobilising investors, tourists and aid for our country) we have ruled ourselves out of any future involvement in politics for all time. When leaders have so disastrously failed as we did, then, if the acceptance of responsibility is to mean anything, the very least they must do is to terminate their involvement in politics and last to rest any political ambitions they may have. Menachem Begin, the former Prime Minister of Israel, set this high example of political morality after he disastrously led his country in invading Lebanon in 1982.

YOUR SPIRIT OF FORGIVENESS HAS INSPIRED US TO DO LIKEWISE

In the meantime we continue to carry our cross; to suffer. But we do so with dignity and with a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation which your willingness to forgive has played no small part in nurturing. As such, though we are disappointed and sad, we bear no bitterness: not towards any of the witnesses who gave false testimony against us; nor the prosecutors who assisted them; nor the Barbadian police who tortured us; nor the judges who did not live up to their oaths in dealing with our case; nor towards anyone else who wronged us in any way over the last 13 years.

We hope that this letter and the sentiments expressed will be accepted in the spirit in which they are conveyed. We are not unaware of the cynicism of some of our people and the blind hatred of others. We are cognisant of the fact that such persons are likely to denounce this letter as not being genuine but simply a "stroke". We know that such denunciations are most likely to come from the very people who have been asserting over and over again, as if that makes it true, that we have shown no remorse. Still, if this was a stroke it would have been more appropriate, one would think, during the years we faced death. And in any case, as we have said above, it is our intention to vigorously pursue our matter before the courts because we are convinced that we will not only be freed but also that our names will be cleared of the criminal convictions. Thus we have had to dig deep and summon the courage to face up to the probable derision of our detractors, so as to discharge our moral obligation to acknowledge the wrongs done to you, and to let you know how your attitude has helped us.

Finally, we sincerely hope that this initiative on our part will lead to some form of meaningful contact and communication between us, which can contribute something towards the healing of the wounds inflicted on the soul and psyche of our nation over the last 25 years.

May God Bless you all.

Date: 1996