The sudden death of two organizations of lawyers

Feb 05, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of occurrences in the legal fraternity which have excited public attention and concern. Were we living in a normal society and in a functional democracy governed by the rule of law, these atrocities would have attracted the strong condemnation of civil-society organizations, such as those championing human rights causes, good governance, constitutionality and the rule of law. But these events have not even attracted a murmur from any of these organizations.
The fact that the state-owned newspaper was used as the vehicle to convey the attack, attached to it an aura of governmental imprimatur which only compounded the scandal. It took no less than the Prime Minister of the country, in a desperate attempt at damage control, to distance the government from its Attorney General’s reckless public outbursts. In an effort to divert blame from himself, two senior law officers of the state, the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General (DSG), fell prey to the wrath of the AG. They were publicly accused of unprofessional, unethical and incompetent conduct. These are damning charges against any professional which can do unquantifiable damage to their professional reputations and standing. The legal issue was a simple one.
The Attorney General appealed in his own name when he was not a party in the court below. Constitution of parties to litigation is one of the first topics taught in any law school. A motion was filed to strike out the appeal filed on that very ground. Any average lawyer would know that such a motion in those circumstances would have been unassailable. Therefore, the court could not have ruled in any other way but to strike out the appeal. Fortunately, both the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General responded in the press. The public, therefore, got an opportunity to hear their side. It tells quite a tale. The Solicitor General pointed out that on two separate occasions and in the presence of others, she advised the AG that the appeal cannot be filed in his name as he was not a party in the court below.
She contends that on both occasions, the AG rejected her advice and instructed her to file the appeal with the AG being the appellant. The Attorney General has not refuted these contentions. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that they are true and consequently, the AG was clearly at fault. The Deputy Solicitor General was even more detailed in her response. She wrote to the Attorney General and lodged a formal complaint with the Public Service Commission. Both letters were made public. In both pieces of correspondence, she outlined the numerous occasions on which she emailed, hand-delivered and even posted letters and memoranda to the AG reminding him of his several professional responsibilities in various cases, including the one that evoked the controversy and calling upon him to discharge those responsibilities. She claims that this correspondence was carbon-copied to other persons and she has copies of them.
Not-withstanding, she contends, the AG failed to discharge his duties in these cases, and consequently, the state lost them. The AG responded in his usual untutored fashion. Rather than attempt to answer the very serious charges of dereliction of duty levelled against him by a subordinate constitutional office-holder, like the proverbial bull in a China shop, he issued another barrage of allegations against the DSG. This time, he alleged that she compromised cases in which I am involved because of some perceived loyalty to me and political allegiance to the PPP.
Is Ms. Kissoon to be blamed for paying BK International US $5.7M on a mere letter threatening litigation? Is Ms. Kissoon to be blamed for filing an appeal six months late against the judgment obtained by Dipcon against the state to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars? Is Ms. Kissoon to be blamed for the billions of dollars in tax write-offs for DDL causing Banks DIH to sue the state for $28B in tax refunds? Is Ms. Kissoon to be blamed for Guyana having to pay over US$6M to Rudisa because of the APNU and AFC’s rejection to the amendments to the Customs Act?
Is Ms. Kissoon to be blamed for the Attorney General telling the Chief Justice that the government has possession of Red House? Is Ms. Kissoon to be blamed for the failed misguided attempts to compulsorily acquire private properties on Carmichael Street? Is Ms. Kissoon to be blamed for the Attorney General’s unwarranted attack on the judiciary which even his own Prime Minister condemned? To another equally egregious matter, I now turn. During the course of this week, the public learnt that Former Chancellor of the Judiciary, Mr. Cecil Kennard, who is the Chairman of the Police Complaints Authority and Former Justice of Appeal, Mr. Prem Persaud, the Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission, have both been given marching orders by the President.
Protection from discrimination is guaranteed to every citizen as a fundamental right and freedom under the Constitution. ‘Age’ is one of the expressed grounds upon which a person cannot be discriminated against, as per article 149 of the Constitution. Yet this is the precise ground upon which these two distinguished jurists were terminated. It is as if Article 149 does not exist. The unfair, unethical and unlawful treatment meted out to these people has not attracted the slightest of reaction from either the Guyana Bar Association or The Guyana Association of Women Lawyers. These two organizations that were so vibrant prior to May 2015 have suddenly become defunct.
Anil Nandlall, MP

---

---