Mr. Nandlall seriously misread the angles of my two columns

Aug 02, 2011 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,
Mr. Anil Nandlall has published a letter in the Sunday edition of the KN and SN in which he appeared unhappy with two columns of mine that specifically dealt with my concern that the President’s libel case against me and the KN was called exactly one year after papers were filed.
Perhaps unhappy is a light word, Mr. Nandlall may have been displeased at the contents of the articles. He stated the two columns imply that justice may have been tampered with through the early trial and that I may have a fear about getting a fair hearing.
Let me say upfront that I respect the legal mind of Mr. Nandlall. Despite his service to the PPP, I have always had a good relationship with him and I don’t believe any malice or mischief was intended in his letter. But I am afraid he has seriously misread the angles of my two columns.
This response here is intended to correct those misconceptions.
First, let me say that I never requested my lawyers to seek of the Acting Chief Justice an early date. I leave the experts to do their job. Secondly, I asked one of my lawyers who was the chief attorney during the injunction phase of the hearing if he requested the fast approach and he said no. That lawyer is Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan.
Mr. Nandlall didn’t name which one of my attorneys petitioned the Chief Justice for the fast approach. I was honestly surprised at the July start, because all Guyanese know court cases takes years and years even for a first hearing. It was only natural then to ask Mr. Ramjattan if he solicited the quick date. He told me no.
It is not the early trial that is in contention here. It is if it was requested. It would appear from Mr. Nandlall’s letter that one of my lawyers did seek the quick hearing. It is for Mr. Nandlall to identify him.
Thirdly, Mr. Nandall was incandescently clear that after the Full Court hearing on the injunction was complete, the trial had to begin. What Mr. Nandlall must know is that the Full Court decision has been appealed so as it stands now, the injunction issue is still in litigation. I will leave it to Mr. Nandlall and my lawyers to determine which should come first – the trial itself or the injunction appeal.
Fourthly, I was advised by persons with equal grasp of the law that given the huge backlog in the High Court that the Chief Justice could not have manoeuvred a priority one year after papers were filed. If I was misled on that then an apology is in order. But was I misled?
Nowhere in those two articles did I posit the fear that justice was not being served in the President’s libel suit. The essence of the two columns was ‘why such an early date?’ I thought that was a fair question because of (I repeat) the colossal backlog.
Here is the explanation offered to me and I like to remind readers that I am willing to concede that the Chief Justice could have prioritized his list.
The fulcrum of my debate is the backlog. I was instructed that even if the Chief Justice wanted to assist the particular lawyer who, according to Mr. Nandlall, petitioned for an early trial, it could not have seen the light one year later, because the list of important cases is simply too long.
People with legal training insisted that there were injunctions that are standing for a long time and they needed to be contested in court long before the President’s libel case. One situation cited to me was that lawyers have obtained an injunction from Justice Claudette La Bennett against the Guyana Revenue Authority from compelling them to pay $200,000 for a practice certificate.
I reiterate for Mr. Nandlall’s benefit; the main thrust of the two columns he referred to in his letter was the early trial against a gargantuan pile waiting to find the light of day. It was not an expression of fear that I will not get justice.
To claim that I am scared of the true dispensation of justice in that particular libel suit is to cast aspersions on the trial judge, Justice Reynolds. I remind Mr. Nandlall that in one of the two articles, I specifically said that there is no reason for me to feel uncertain about Justice Reynolds. And there was no criticism of the Chief Justice either.
I end with one curiosity. If Justice Chang responded to an early trial request, then weren’t there others from many lawyers? If so, would he not have to bring forward my lawyer’s request in front of others that were already there because of a well known, gigantic backlog?

Frederick Kissoon

Latest News

Mr. Nandlall seriously misread the angles of my two columns

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 11th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Runsfest ends in draw, as arch rivals play hearts out

Guyana Harpy Eagles trio fined for breaching...

Sport Ministry injects $3M into EDFA League

GCB President meets U15 team ahead of Regional...

Jumbo Jet Thoroughbred Racing Committee, Guyana...

Week 3 of East Bank FA Boys’ U14 League shines...

Features/Columnists

The mirage of citizen investment

Collaborative Government–Private Sector Action Imperative for a Resilient Trade Future

The Great American Experiment

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Mr. Nandlall seriously misread the angles of my two columns

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 11th, 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 […]