Latest update February 9th, 2025 1:59 PM
Dec 07, 2013 Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
I am writing to you once again in relation to an article published in yesterday’s edition (5th December, 2013) of Kaieteur News concerning the Radio Licence court case. I am once again appalled at the misleading reports made in this article in respect of the Attorney-General, where it stated, “AG no-show – It was widely expected yesterday that Publisher of Kaieteur News, Glenn Lall, would have been cross-examined by Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, when the matter came up before Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang.”
I can tell you with great certainty that at no time during the hearing of this matter, did the Honourable Attorney-General or anyone on his behalf inform the Court that he wished to cross-examine Mr. Glenn Lall. In fact, Mr. Lall’s presence was requested by Counsel for one of the other named Respondents; not the Attorney-General.
What is even more disturbing is the message which is portrayed by the words, “AG no-show”. This suggested to me, and I am certain it would suggest to anyone reading the article, that the Office of the Attorney-General was unrepresented.
The matter was called on Wednesday 4th December, 2013, before the Honourable Chief Justice at 2:30pm and I appeared on behalf of the Attorney-General for the first four named Respondents.
As State Counsel, I am authorised, as per instructions of the Honourable Attorney-General, to appear for and on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General in respect of all actions brought by, or against the Office of the Attorney-General. Once I am there, the Attorney-General is represented. Therefore, by saying that the Attorney-General was a ‘no-show’, is by extension saying that the Office of the Attorney-General was unrepresented, which is most inaccurate and highly misleading, to say the very least.
There are 16 named Respondents in this case, more than half of which were unrepresented by Counsel on Wednesday when the matter was called; yet your reporters saw it fit to suggest that only the Attorney-General was unrepresented.
As one of the largest newspapers in Guyana, you and your reporters have an undeniable duty to make unbiased, informed, and accurate publications in respect of the events on which you choose to report. I am sure you are aware of this. That being said, I can only assume that your reporters are careless, or that your publication is hell-bent on misleading its readers when it comes to this case. I cannot tell you which is the lesser of the two evils.
This is the second time that I have had cause to write to you with a complaint of a misleading article concerning the Attorney-General in respect of this same case. On the last occasion when I had cause to write you in respect of another misleading headline plastered across the front page of Kaieteur News 29th October, 2013, edition, your apology appeared the next day tucked away in the corner of page 6. Nevertheless, I am once again demanding a published apology, which I can only hope this time will be given the same prominence as the inaccurate misrepresentations.
If this mistake is not corrected, or if your newspaper continues to publish misleading articles and statements, I will be forced to ask the Court to consider granting an order restraining Kaieteur News from publishing anything in respect of this matter.
Arianne Mc Lean
Feb 09, 2025
Kaieteur Sports- Vurlon Mills Football Academy Inc and SBM Offshore Guyana launch the second year of the Girls in Football Development Program. February 5, 2025, Georgetown: The Vurlon Mills Football...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News-The Jagdeo Doctrine is an absurd, reckless, and fundamentally shortsighted economic fallacy.... more
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]