Former UG Registrar speaks on the Freddie Kissoon dismissal from UG

Dec 07, 2015 Letters

Dear Editor,
My disposition on writing letters to the Press has been to give factual reports, dispel erroneous information and expose mischief makers.
On this occasion, my objectives is to draw the readers attention to the facts on Kaieteur News report, of Dec 5, 2015, on Freddie Kissoon’s termination, by UG, thus ensuring that no misconstrued role is attributed to me.
The report indicated that the Ombudsman’ s letter of advice was dated Dec 22, 2014. My last working day at UG was Dec 23, 2014. In preparation for a seamless handing-over I had ceased, over a month prior to Dec 23, 2014, receiving any correspondence and or dealing with any new matter.
That letter might have been addressed to me but, in the circumstances referred to above, would not have been directed to me, upon receipt, since it was dated on Dec 22 when I had already ceased handling incoming correspondence and its delivery most likely was on or after Dec 23, the day when the University closed for the Christmas break and I demitted office.
Jan 6, 2015 when the Ombudsman was reported to have made his pronouncement was beyond my period at UG. The aforementioned should dismiss any thought that I was at UG and associated with the response or lack of to the Ombudsman’s advisory on Kissoon’s termination.
May I however share some knowledge on the Office of the Ombudsman as it pertains to the Kissoon or any such case.
1. That the Ombudsman pronounced on the matter was an acceptance, by him, that the termination was not illegal and could not have been the subject of judicial redress.
The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is restricted to matters of maladministration or wrong doing that are not justiciable.
2. He could only have concluded that Kissoon was unfairly dismissed. With that view I concur.
3. While an organization is not compelled to act on the advisory of the Ombudsman, it may be acted on in the interest of justice/fairness.
4. The equally fundamental role of the Ombudsman is to submit an annual report to the National Assembly, which report may bring to the attention of the law makers lacunae in the law.
In this instance the lacuna is the absence of provisions, in our laws, for the termination of employment, by the employer, to be effected only when cause is proffered.
It is for the legislators to determine whether or not they accepted that there is a lacuna and if so whether it should be plugged.
Vincent Alexander

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News