President Granger versus the Bar Association

Dec 04, 2015 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

There can hardly be any debate about it; President Granger was a touch angry when he heard what the Bar Association had to say about his Independence Day pardon of forty young convicts. This is a story that has a little bit of right and wrong on both sides, though I would come out in support of the President’s reaction. I have little regard for the upper strata of this country. They are hypocritical, merciless, morally questionable and shameless folks. This is one citizen that has no respect for the Private Sector Organization.
There is absolutely no way I could address a school of young Guyanese without urging them to withhold their respect for certain institutions that are not worthy of their admiration. Two immediately come to mind – the magistracy and the Private Sector Commission. It irritates you when you see how sacred values are desecrated by stakeholders who have absolutely no interest in safeguarding these values. We passed through a terrible time with the Burnham regime. Then Jagdeo came and exceeded Burnham’s negative propensities, but in all the decades of the vicious assault on liberties and values, the Private Sector Commission happily played the role of a toothless poodle. What can this particular stakeholder tell the younger generations of Guyana?
I am not going to put the Bar Association in the same sordid category as the Private Sector Commission. That would be conceptually unthinkable. But you have to put yourself in the place of President Granger. Obviously the thought must have flew into his mind as to why the Association wanted to examine his pardon of forty young convicts, when the Association can find so many other legal and judicial anomalies to confront.
On the other hand, President Granger is in for a rude awakening in post-2015 Guyana. He should tread carefully because he may well end up with the same politically jejune explanations the PPP Government gave the nation when they made unpopular decisions
One of the reasons the PPP fell into the den of abomination, is because it used a nasty methodology to justify its unjust reign. Each time the PPP regime fired a public servant, jailed an opponent or made an incestuous appointment, its reaction was based on twisted logic. It told its critics that it only fired one employee whereas under Burnham public servants were dismissed by the dozens.
In other words, what the PPP was saying was that their victims were far less than Burnham’s so what are you criticizing us for. It never occurred to the PPP that from 1992 to when it lost power in May 2015, the world expected it not to fire even one worker because the world expected from the PPP Government what the Burnham Government didn’t give Guyana – democracy
The Jagdeo/Ramotar era was so secretive, opaque in financial expenditure, incestuous in employment practices and mean-spirited in dealing with critics that after May 2015, the nation expects a total transformation of governance. They want to see leaders answer questions, apologize for mistakes, consult on far-reaching policies, demonstrate transparency and accountability in the administration of state affairs, exhibit humility and avoid arrogance.
It is in this context the Bar Association acted. The Association obviously felt that there needed to be public release of names and offences committed and length of sentence. It is implausible to offer a counter-argument, because this was what was expected of the new government. The Bar Association must have said to itself that this pardon thing smack of secrecy and this was not what was expected from the new dispensation.
On the other hand, it was rational for the President to inquire why the young convicts and not another area of the rule of law that the Bar Association should concentrate on. Indeed there are many of these areas which no doubt the President knows about. When in the past forty years has the country heard of discipline against an attorney for egregious misconduct? Isn’t there sufficient evidence that there is the abuse of power in the lower courts?
Why hasn’t the Bar Association joined the debate on Magistrate Moore’s decision to award a convicted narcotic trafficker a suspended sentence involving 150 pounds of cocaine and an illegal shot-gun? The controversy revolves around the question – does the particular law (the Narcotics Act under which he was charged) allow for suspended sentence? I don’t know. So maybe the Bar Association can enlighten us, lay people. Does the Bar Association accept the exclusion of the presence (not reporting) of the press in trials under the Sexual Offences Act?
Why the presidential pardon and not these inquiries? I wonder!

---

---