The DPP walks into theoretical minefield

May 06, 2010 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

The Director of Public Prosecutions has asked the Chief Justice (ag) to rule on an application that Justice Ramlal recuse himself as the judge in what in journalistic lingo has come to be known as the pink suitcase cocaine hearing now before the Full Court. The Chief Justice requested commentaries from Justice Ramlal himself and Justice George who are hearing an application from attorney Nigel Hughes involving charges connected with the pink suitcase.
Here is the DPP’s point. Justice Ramlal’s sister has been charged with an indictable offence and one of her lawyers is Mr. Hughes.
The DPP contends that the likelihood of bias is real because that the lawyer may get favourable treatment from Justice Ramlal. Both Justices George and Ramlal in their submissions refuse to see a conflict of interest and the likelihood of bias. Judge George didn’t accept that Mr. Ramlal recuse himself. Mr. Ramlal didn’t.
This is a curious conclusion by the DPP and should give rise to profound observations among social science academics and lawyers. First, is there is a conflict of interest? The answer is no because the connecting threads are not there.
Without wanting to delineate the burden of proof that lies in conflict of interest episodes there are two points to note in the conflict of interest – direct involvement and the proximity to gain.
In the first instance an authority that will give a decision that has consequences for those that he/she presides over must not be directly connected to the circumstances. Too many examples can be offered; in fact, the examples are endless. We should take just one.
A company is asking for permission to erect an airport to which residents have objected because of noise. It is then ascertained that the judge lives in that suburb that will be affected. To avoid conflict of interest, he should not preside over the petition.
The second instance is gain. Is the decision likely to involve a gain for the presiding authority? We go to another example. A company is asking for permission to be bought over because the opposing corporation is buying its shares at a whopping price. If the judge’s wife is likely to benefit from the take over because of the sale of her shares, he should recuse himself
If a polemicist contends that the DPP’s application has conflict of interest validity then that stretches the conflict of interest interpretation to countless forms. It may be good but the resulting confusion makes life unrealistic to live.
First, the DPP is assuming that the brother and sister have terms of endearment. Maybe they are strangers. I have a sister in England who is a stranger to me. Secondly, it means that the lawyers for Ms. Sita Ramlal can no longer appear in front of Justice Ramlal and I believe Ms. Ramlal has five attorneys. That seems to be a very ill-shaped solution.
Thirdly, and more importantly, why should the conflict of interest convention apply only to relatives? If you accept the DPP’s concern in this case then what is it in moral philosophy that would stop you from extending it to a huge number of scenarios?
Take the DPP herself. She is a member of the CIOG. Her husband is the official priest of the CIOG and the scholar-in-residence. There are rumours floating around that the DPP may not be favourable to charging members of the CIOG. Have there been such cases? I don’t know but I have been told that in two cases, one involving students visas to Canada and importation of illegal beer, there were no charges. Let me repeat, I don’t know if these are more than what they are at the moment—rumours
Should a teacher refuse to lecture to his colleague’s child if that child enters the medical programme of the institution where both work for the same department? Would the college have to find another teacher to tutor just one student? And suppose the course calls for a specialist in which the teacher is the only one available? Where to find another specialist?
Indeed the DPP’s contestation is fraught with deep problems.
Finally, as explained recently, under the Constitution, the Cabinet does not have executive authority and is merely an advisory body. The Cabinet cannot vote against the President. When President Jagdeo left the Cabinet when concessions for Queens Atlantic were being discussed did he observe the conflict of interest principle or was that a farce since the Cabinet was being asked to make a decision on the friend of their boss?

Latest News

The DPP walks into theoretical minefield

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 4th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

‘One Guyana’ 3×3 Quest tips off today

Twin tons from Anderson, Imlach steer Eagles back...

Race for quarterfinal spots commence today at MoE...

Marsh sets up Lucknow’s comfortable win...

Saints and GTI dominate as YBG Georgetown...

Carty misses ton, Hamilton (80) sets up tense...

Features/Columnists

The One-Man Republic

The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation

Polls – what they say, where I stand

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

The DPP walks into theoretical minefield

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 4th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]