I am not a lawyer but know more law than this attorney

Jul 21, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
I see Mr. Maxwell Edwards continuing his ramblings in the letter columns as he persists in magnifying a clerical error and transforming it into a major legal issue. This supposedly learned gentleman continues to use the letter columns of the newspapers to egotistically showcase what he obviously considers to be his legal erudition to the lay public whom he insults with an expectation that they will unsuspectingly swallow his deeply flawed and lack of understanding of the law.
Even as he continues to flog this dead horse of a major “legal significance” between Commonwealth Law Reports and Reports of the Commonwealth in the factual context of the controversy involving Anil Nandlall, I read in the newspapers that the Special Prosecutor applied to amend the charge filed against Nandlall as the charge itself contained a clerical misdescription of the books, describing them as CLR and not LRC: the identical error contained in Nandlall’s High Court Conservatory Order. And guess what? The magistrate granted the amendment, obviously on the ground that the error does not affect the substance of the charge and it is of little or no legal consequence.
So, Mr. Edwards again has been proven wrong. If the difference was so legally fundamental as he claims, then the charge would have had to be dismissed immediately. Thankfully, we don’t have too many Edwards in the legal profession or on the bench. I took Mr Edwards’ letter to two of his erstwhile and close colleagues while he was on the Bench, who are still practicing at the Bar and I pointed them to his contention that a judge has no jurisdiction to grant a Conservatory Order which has the impact of an injunction against the State which is prohibited by the State Liabilities and Proceeding Act.
They first advised me to ignore Edwards, pointing to his state of mind. They said he is obviously not thinking straight. Conservatory Orders are granted under Article 153 of the Constitution, the supreme law, which no ordinary legislation can limit. They pointed me to dozens of death penalty cases, including the famous Pratt and Morgan from Jamaica and Yassin and Thomas from Guyana, where Conservatory Orders were granted over 30 years ago. They informed me that since then, Conservatory Orders are regularly granted to protect other fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen. So Edwards is wrong again.
Mr. Edwards acknowledges his regular nocturnal outings at the Chinese restaurant I referred to on Sheriff Street. However, where he claims that he use to “recreate and womanize” (sections of his letter were carried in other newspaper but edited out by Kaieteur News) almost nightly while he was a magistrate! Well that speaks volumes for the type and quality of judicial officer you were! But I was not even referring to those activities.
I was referring to the meetings which took place between you and certain litigants. It is those meetings which made you admitted “recreating” and “womanizing” possible as they could clearly not be sustained on a magistrate’s remuneration. Finally, Mr. Edwards disputes my existence. Let me assure you, Mr. Edwards that I do exist. My full name is Nandkumar Puran. And contrary to your arrogant insinuation that only lawyers know the law, I am not a lawyer but I am satisfied that I do know the law more than you.
Nandkumar Puran

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News