My response to Freddie Kissoon

Jun 26, 2016 Letters

Dear Editor;
Freddie Kissoon and I have known each other, personally, for a long time. I believe we still maintain a civil relationship. For several years now, I stopped reading anything he writes. However, my attention was drawn to Freddie Kissoon Column published on the 25th of June, 2016. It bore the bold caption, “Bruce Munroe, Anil Nandlall and the DPP”. In that article, Mr. Kissoon alleges that “a very well known and respected lawyer” request of him to do a column as “a special request”.
“This lawyer told me that if the police could have charged Bruce Munroe for treason, a woman on Facebook for threatening President Granger, and a man on Facebook for boasting to harm Opposition Leader Jagdeo, then, Anil Nandlall should be charged…”, writes Kissoon. Unfortunately, this “very well known and respected lawyer”, apparently, omitted to inform Mr. Kissoon for what offence I should have been charged since no such disclosure is made in the article. Mr. Kissoon should have extracted from this “very well known and respected lawyer” the name of the offence for which I should have be charged. Apparently, he did not do so. Had he done so, my response would have been more interesting.
This lawyer referred Mr. Kissoon to three cases. Those who instituted those charges obviously felt that there was sufficient basis to lay those charges, having regard to what the person charged either said or wrote. The source from which those written or oral statements emanated was obviously deemed immaterial. The content of what was allegedly said formed the basis of those charges. Since no offence was suggested in the article, I can only speculate that the “very well known and respected lawyer” and Mr. Kissoon have formed the flawed opinion that I may have threatened someone. I so surmise because that is how it was widely and erroneously reported in the press.
The legal truth is I never threatened anyone or committed any offence in that taped conversation. I simply warned of a likely consequence if a particular course of action persists. That is not a threat. If I say to someone “that if you don’t look before you cross the road you will be struck down by traffic.” How can that be interpreted as a threat? Everyday lawyers are required to advise, and in so doing, warned clients of the likely legal consequences of their actions. My grandmother used to say “if you don’t hear, you will feel”, is that a threat? I think not. Can lawyers be accused of threatening their clienst? Of course not. In the aftermath of the deadly attack on Charlie Hebdo’s newspaper in Paris, France, speaking about the dangers of provocative publications, Pope Francis said, “If my good friend Dr. Gasbarri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,”. No one accused the revered Pope of threatening anyone. And quiet rightly so. He was simply referring to a likely consequence of a particular course of action.
For Mr. Kissoon’s edification the Director of Public Prosecutions advised on the matter. The advice spanned two pages. It concluded that there was no violation of the criminal law. I regret to inform Mr. Kissoon that, unfortunately for him and the “very well known and respected lawyer”, the DPP has no obligation to supply them with the legal advice that her office renders or the reasons for the same.
Since Mr. Kissoon seems interested in getting the DPP to re-open old cases, I recall him publicly admitting that he stole books from the National Library. He proffered some clumsy explanation about his thirst for knowledge and his unfortunate poverty, as justification for him stealing those books, thereby denying other poor children the use of those books. Perhaps, the DPP should be persuaded to file charges of larceny against him. He has already confessed. That would be a very easy case to prove. Poverty and thirst for knowledge are not and have never been defences to larceny.
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP
Attorney- at- Law

2 thoughts on “My response to Freddie Kissoon”

Quincy Bailey June 26, 2016 at 1:50 pm

Well well this guy has finally admitted it was his voice on the tapes. You should still be charged as soon as yesterday.
randn01 June 27, 2016 at 12:18 pm

Nandlall ,as a former AG and you don”t what you should be charged for tell how ignorant you are with regards to the books. When you were AG why did’t you have Freddie investigated for stolen books if Freddie stole books, Look at what you as a former AG have stolen from the poor Guyanese people.