Freddie Kissoon clarifies his dispute with law firm

Jul 23, 2017 News

Former UG lecturer, Freddie Kissoon, was taken to task by Senior Attorney Ralph Ramkarran for misrepresentation of facts in a court case against UG in 2005 involving Cameron and Shepherd, the firm Ramkarran heads.

Attorney-at-Law Roysdale Forde

Ralph Ramkarran

Freddie Kissoon

The issues are contained in a column by Kissoon of July 18, last, captioned, “An encounter with Judge Navendra Singh at the supermarket.”
Mr. Kissoon offered an apology and retraction as requested by Mr. Ramkarran. The newspaper published the main accusations of the law firm against Kissoon. Speaking to Kaieteur News, yesterday, Kissoon said that although he stands by the apology, he needs to put his side of the story.
He explained in Mr. Ramkarran’s letter to the newspaper threatening legal proceedings, nowhere in his letter did Mr. Ramkarran mention that Judge Patterson issued three Nisi Orders applied for by Jason Benjamin of the University of Guyana.
Kissoon explained that Ramkarran gave a detailed account of the case that dated back 2005 but did not state that the court made orders. Kissoon pointed out that what he did in the July 18 column was to repeat what he had written several times since 2005 – that the legal advice to the university (by Mr. Ramkarran) was that the Nisi orders did not stipulate the removal of James Rose and the reinstatement of Dr. Mark Kirton
Kissoon told Kaieteur News that he took that position because Mr. Ramkarran had informed the University not to adhere to the Nisi orders in two letters to the institution. Kissoon went on to state that his lawyers instructed him that the three Orders in fact reinstated Dr. Kirton.
Legal opinion on this issue is divided. One school of thought is that the Order Nisi is not mandatory. Another says that it is enforceable. Attorney Roysdale Forde said that the general movement is toward the latter.
Anil Nandlall wrote the Pro-Chancellor, Dr. Prem Misir on the Orders, a copy of which the newspaper has seen. Kissoon stated that Khemraj Ramjattan confronted Mr. Ramkarran on his advice to the university in an open letter titled, “Let us be nice to the Order Nisi.”
Kissoon said that Ramkarran admitted in one of his letters that his advice to the university generated debate in the media. That section of Ramkarran’s letter reads; “Regarding comments in the press by lawyers and others as to the nature of an ORDER NISI and the quality of our advice, we suggest that you ignore them as we have done.”
Kissoon said that this admission by Ramkarran showed that his advice to the university was not without controversy. Kissoon produced a letter dated September 13, 2005 written by Ramkarran in which the Senior Counsel contended; “In the meantime, we stand by the advice contained in our letter of 7th September, 2005 as regards Action No 126 – M 2005 Demerara. In relation to the matter we advise that Dr. Rose is legally entitled to continue in the post of Vice Chancellor to which he was appointed, notwithstanding the ORDER NISI.”
Kissoon said it is crystal clear that an ORDER was granted and he feels it is strange that it is not mentioned at all in Mr. Ramkarran’s letter requesting an apology or he will sue. It is also clear Kissoon went on that in two letters Mr. Ramkarran advised the university against reinstating Dr. Kirton.
In all these years of writing on the issue, I have always maintained that the judge issued an order nisi, Kissoon said. “I don’t dispute the legal knowledge of Mr. Ramkarran but I did no wrong by stating in my column that he had advised the university not to adhere to the Nisi.”
Kissoon intoned that he hopes his clarification brings an end to this matter and that he and Mr. Ramkarran can avoid future disputes.
And there was an attempt at dishonesty by representatives of Mr. Ramkarran. The three PPP Leviathans, the representative suggested, were Bharrat Jagdeo, Henry Jeffrey and Ralph Ramkarran.
In fact, Kissoon named them in his column. They were Anil Nandlall, Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar.