The registrar’s rebuttal is flawed and legally misguided

Jul 29, 2011 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
I trust that you will permit me my right of self defence and my constitutional right of free speech in responding to the Registrar of the UG’s childish rebuttal of my serious attempt to prevent UG from seriously undermining one of its few accredited programmes.
Quite frankly, I am amazed and seriously perturbed at Mr. Alexander’s cavalier and dismissive treatment of such a tremendously traumatic issue to every present and future holder of the UG LL.B Degree.
Is he really contending that UG can undermine its admissions criteria in a number of cases in an accredited programme, such as the UG law programme, fail to correct this problem appropriately without any impact on its accreditation?
Further, to describe my warning on this issue as being “utter nonsense” reveals a dangerous contempt for the rights and interests of innocent third parties.  Is he speaking on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor or himself or UG?  If he is speaking on behalf of UG, who gave him the authority to do so?  Is it encompassed in Statute 7 of the Acts and Statutes of UG?  Or is the Registrar acting on a ‘frolic of his own’.  Certainly, the Registrar cannot be purporting to speak on behalf of the ‘accrediting bodies’ concerned  –  he has no legal jurisdiction to do so.
The point I am making here is so obviously simple that it may have slipped the complex mind of the Registrar.  It is this  –  it is really a matter for the UWI Law Faculty and the Council of Legal Education (CLE) to speak authoritatively on issues of accreditation.
Such matters do not vest in the legal domain of the Registrar and I am sure that both the UWI Law Faculty and the CLE do not share this most absurd and irresponsible opinion of the Registrar.
In fact, I am a member of the UWI Law Faculty Board and I have direct and personal knowledge that its esteemed Dean most definitely does not share the view of the Registrar.   At the last meeting of the UWI Law Faculty, I had reported to the Board that I was seeking to get pertinent officials of UG to adequately resolve the problems relating to the many breaches of the admissions’ criteria of  the UG law programme and that I will report same as soon thereafter.
Do I now have the Registrar’s answer on behalf of UG, i.e. that it is all “utter nonsense”.  Registrar, I caution you please seek competent legal advice before you answer!  It must always be remembered that automatic admissions to the law schools is determined under the 1970 Agreement by the determination of the CLE that the LL.B Degree in question is equivalent to the UWI LL.B Degree.
This equivalency, in turn, depends upon us having equivalent conditions to UWI upon which our LL.B Degree is awarded.  One of the salient factors upon which this equivalency is based is the strict satisfaction of equivalent admissions’ criteria.  Another important factor has to do with the quality of the qualifications of our teaching staff at both the undergraduate LL.B level and the postgraduate level.  There are also other criteria.
I would like to state a few words on the very important ‘sub judice’ legal principle.  It is something that I have written about before.
The rule is intended to prohibit certain types of comments on matters before the court.  I am always reminded of Lord Denning’s maxim that ‘a fair comment does not prejudice a fair trial’.
IT DOES NOT APPLY TO STATEMENT OF FACTS, ONLY TO COMMENTS.  Thus, you can report publicly everything in a writ and indorsement of claim.  You can also report everything which transpires in a public hearing in court once your report is fair and accurate.
I recently brought two writs against the Vice-Chancellor and one against the Registrar in their official capacities.  The writs were not brought against the University of Guyana because it is my sincere belief that these officials were deliberately and knowingly acting without legal authority, based on ‘wilful blindness’ and a willful refusal to seek competent legal advice.
A corporation can only act through some human being and if that human being acts in total disregard of the rules of the corporation that human being should be made to pay.
In conclusion, I would like us to ponder this issue.  One of the writs against the Vice-Chancellor sought, inter alia, a declaration, that the basic rule of eligibility for the appointment of the head of  the UG Law Department is and always has been since its inception in 1997 that that person should be “a professor or senior lecturer and someone who is also professionally qualified to practise law in Guyana.”
In the face of this writ, the pertinent official of UG went ahead and appointed another official in breach of this rule.  Is this not worst than an unfair comment?
Professor Calvin Eversley
Head, UG Law Department

---

---