GRENADA Jailed unionist on hunger strike TWO YEARS after the US invasion of Grenada, the repressive drive to break or bring to heel the workers and popular movement continues. The case of Chester Humphrey has become a focus of this, as a particularly outrageous persecution of a popular union leader in which Washington is trying to impose its writ in total disregard for local and international law. This case is also a focus of the workers and popular movement, which is reviving despite the repression.
The first public demonstration of opposition to a policy of the US and puppet authorities took place a few weeks ago. It was a protest of hundreds of people in the streets against the threatened extradition of Chester Humphrey, organized by the Maurice Bishop Patriotic Movement. Humphrey's appeal against the extradition order will be heard sometime in November. This is the last recourse before being turned over to the tender mercies of the US courts. He began an unlimited hunger strike on September 2. It is not known what his condition is today, but it can hardly be good.
It is important that the maximum international pressure be brought to bear while there is still time. Letters and telegrams opposing Humphrey's extradition should be sent to Prime Minister Herbert Blaize, Prime Minister's Office, St. George's, Grenada.
The following articles on the case are from No 9 of Free Grenada, the publication of the Swedish Grenadakommittee. STIEG LARSSON and JIM WARDALLY
At the beginning of November 1983, a few days after the US invasion of Grenada, the trade-union leader Chester Humphrey was arrested by the military authorities in St. George's.
Humphrey, the new rulers claimed was a source of "unrest" among the workers in Grenada. That was a euphemism meaning in fact that he opposed the occupation and made no secret of it.
Without further ado, Chester Humphrey was imprisoned in Richmond Hill, where he was held together with the leaders of the October 19 coup d'etat against the government of Maurice Bishop. Today, two years after the invasion, he remains behind bars waiting - as absurd as it may seem, extradition to the US!
The case of Chester Humphrey highlights the sort of democracy the US has brought in. So, it bears looking at more closely.
The US invasion, together with the brief reign of the so-called Military Council in the week following the murder of Maurice Bishop led to a grave and grievous setback for the Grenadan workers movement. The old leadership that made up the progressive nucleus of the unions was to a large extent wiped out.
Among the comrades murdered during the counterrevolution on October 19 were Vincent Noel, chair of the Bank and General Workers Union and Fitzroy Bain, chair of the Agricultural and General Workers union. These were two of Grenada's foremost and most popular leaders.
Jim Wardally, the chair of the Technical and Allied Workers Union, had the good fortune to go into exile. As a result, he has been prevented from participating directly in the struggle in Grenada.
The chair of the confederation of Grenadan unions, John Ventour, has been interned since the invasion, accused of complicity in the murders at Fort Rupert [of Bishop and his comrades].
Regardless of whether or not there is any basis for these charges, the
7
result is that the work of the confederation has been seriously disrupted.
Thus, the majority of the union leaders were eliminated - by murder, forced exile, or internment. The few surviving popular and respected leaders have been subjected to daily harassment and vilification aimed at making it impossible for them to operate.
In this connection, Chester Humphrey is a key person. He is a member of the leadership of the Grenadan confederation of unions and was elected to the post of deputy chair of the Technical and Allied Workers Union (TAWU).
As a union leader, he is both popular and respected among the members. He is known as a stubborn and courageous person who will not give in to threats and harassment. He is a tough dealer who has skillfully defended the interests of the membership.
For the occupation authorities, therefore, he is, in a nutshell, a particularly dangerous person who has at all costs to be made harmless.
During the US invasion of Grenada, Chester Humphrey took part in the defense of the country. He functioned as a communications technician. When the resistance collapsed, he returned to his work as a union leader, and this was at a time when defense of the workers interests was more important than ever. A short time later, he was arrested. Still today, two years later, he remains interned. A parody of justice
The imprisonment of Chester Humphrey is a pure parody of justice, which shows with all the clarity anyone could want how the new rulers in St George's define democracy. There are no judicial or legal grounds for his internment.
According to Grenadan law, any person arrested must be released within seven days unless they are indicted for a specific violation of Grenadan law. No indictment or accusation has been made.
No one, neither the US nor its local puppet regime, has accused Chester Humphrey of implication in any political conspiracy in connec tion with the coup d'etat.
He has not been accused in any way of involvement in the murders of Maurice Bishop and his associates at the time of the coup d'etat.
The threat that Chester Humphrey has received during his time in prison would be a scandal in any state that claims to be based on proper legal procedures.
He has been denied the right to legal representation during a good part of his confinement. When he was arrested, Humphrey immediately demanded his lawyer. His request was disregarded during the first six months of his imprisonment. It was only at the end of April 1984 that he was able to get legal advice. The consultation was ended after ten minutes.
Over long periods, Chester Humphrey has been held in strict isolation. That has not only stopped visits from his family but created big problems for his legal defense. Visits have been broken off and cancelled arbitrarily and without any explanations.
Humphrey has been denied access to pen and paper, which he needs to prepare his defense or just to write to the court to ask why he is being held.
On May 9, 1984, Chester Humphrey's lawyer got tired of this arbitrary treatment and lack of explanations from the authorities. He filed a habeaus corpus brief with the court in St. George's.
In British jurisprudence, the law on habeas corpus has been the ultimate guarantee for persons arrested, so that no one can disappear in prison without their case being tried in court. The latin term literally means "produce the body." It obliges the prosecution to either indict jailed persons immediately or release them.
To disregard such a demand is the gravest dereliction of judicial responsibility possible in a state that claims to be based on proper legal procedures.
So, in. Chester Humphrey's case the authorities do not have a legal leg to stand on. Without even acknowledging his lawyer's habeaus corpus brief, they are continuing to hold him.
On May 15, 1984, Chester Humphrey was quite unexpectedly released from prison. No explanations were given, but it seems that the occupation authorities at long last had come to the same conclusion as everybody else - that there were no legal grounds whatsoever for keeping him interned.
At that point, the treatment of Chester Humphrey was beginning to arouse serious protests, and the business threatened to become a sore point for both the US and the puppet regime in St. George's.
During the time he was free -which was to be very short - Humphrey was subjected to constant surveillance and harassment by the police forces of the occupying power. On several occasions, he was warned against engaging in "political activity."
As a trade-union leader, however, It was Chester Humphrey's duty to do work in his union, and shortly after his release, delegations of workers visited him at his home to discuss various union affairs.
The rulers in St. George's apparently quickly came to the conclusion that it was too risky to have Humphrey running around scot-free. On the flimsiest of pretexts, he was rearrested.
Once again, no formal charge was lodged against him.
Instead, it was explained, the union leader had been arrested in anticipation that a Grenadan court "would respond to an expected demand from an American court to extradite Chester Humphrey to the United States."
This expedient hardly needs to be explained. Since Chester Humphrey had committed no crime in Grenada, there was no reason to keep him behind bars. Since he was too dangerous to be let free they had to find some grounds for arresting him.
How anxious they were to get him back safe behind lock and key is shown best perhaps by the fact that he was arrested several months before there was any formal request from the US to the court in Grenada.
Formally, the USA is accusing Chester Humphrey of a crime that he is supposed to have committed in the US before the Grenadan revolution in 1979. The indictment is in 11 points, going from arms smuggling to such hard-to-define accusations as "conspiracy against the US government." If Chester Humphrey is found guilty on all counts, he could get around 25 years in prison.
The judicial procedures around the US request for extradition can at best be described as pure farce.
After having awaited the US's formal request, the case was postponed for the entire winter of 1984-1985. This stands in glaring contrast to the speed with which he was interned.
Since no formal charge has been made against him in Grenada, he cannot appeal against his imprisonment and gain release.
It should be stressed that Grenada and the USA have no mutual extradition treaty. This fact was cited over and over again by the Reagan administration as grounds for not handing over the former dictator, Eric Gairy, to the Bishop government in the revolutionary period.
Nevertheless, the Grenadan court decided in March of this year, when the case was finally considered, to extradite Chester Humphrey to the USA.
The decision to extradite him was thus already made, but at the time of writing it has not yet been carried out. But it can happen at any time. International Viewpoint 28 October 1985
GRENADA