There are questions surrounding that GUYTRAC settlement

May 14, 2018 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Something does not appear to be right with regard to the recent settlement of the GUYTRAC case. The contention that the State saved $63 million appears to be nothing more than a calculated and contrived explanation intending to serve as a smokescreen for the real motive behind the settlement.
First, there is the undisputed, established fact that the chambers of the Attorney-General assumed control of the legal proceedings commenced by GUYTRAC in place of the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) which had its own in-house arrangements for legal representation.
Secondly, the Kaieteur News reported on its possession of correspondence addressed to President Granger, the High Court Judge and the lawyer for GUYTRAC in which Attorney-General Basil Williams advised of his “decision TO APPEAR PERSONALLY “ and conduct the trial before the Judge.
The public now understands that assuming the Attorney General did give such an undertaking, which he has not denied, it was an undertaking which he appears to have knowingly and wilfully failed to honour and which may be perceived as an attempt by the Attorney General to mislead the President and the others to whom the letter was addressed.
Serious note is taken of the media report that when asked by a newspaper reporter why he did not personally appear in the matter, the Attorney General avoided the question and referred the newspaper to the Solicitor General who also avoided an answer to the newspaper’s enquiry.
The Attorney General in comments about the matter shifts the blame for the court’s ruling against the state to Ms. Prithima Kissoon, whom I recall had some harrowing experiences at the chambers of the Attorney General.
I pause to make the observation that contrary to his assertions , at the levels of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the CCJ, our Attorney General has less than a fair record of success in his representation of cases involving the Government of Guyana.
Popular word on the street is that “Basil tekking a licking in the court from Nandlall “. So it is seen that in this matter the Attorney General does not accept blame for Government’s loss of the GUYTRAC case in the High Court.
The chambers of the Attorney General has explained that in this case Ms. Kissoon solely conducted the matter and that she prepared and filed pleadings and submissions on behalf of the state. The “AG’s Chambers” accuse Ms. Kissoon of assisting the case for the defence “ without regard to specific instructions from Attorney General Basil Williams”.
The bungling and incompetence which so frequently emerges from the chambers of the Attorney General know no bounds. Complaint is made by the “chambers of the Attorney General that Ms Kissoon was assisting the defence, but this is really such a very stupid contention. There is really no room for complaint. Ms Kissoon was duty-bound to assist the defence. She was representing the Government of Guyana, the defendant in the matter.
If indeed Miss Kissoon did in fact ignore some specific instructions from the Attorney General Basil Williams, in the matter, could it be that Miss Kissoon in her own considered view concluded that any such alleged instructions were worthless and without any merit and therefore not in the best interest of the government? I would not rule out such a possibility.
Ms Kissoon has however stated that at one stage of the legal proceedings she was removed from the case and sent on leave . It appears that this was before the trial commenced because she said some documents had to be filed by GUYTRAC’s lawyer which she did not see because she had been removed from the case and sent on administrative leave.
The AG’s Chambers disclosed in a published statement that Ms Kissoon filed pleadings, conducted the trial, argued and filed submissions. Both accounts cannot be correct. The truth needs to be established. The statement from the AG Chambers also explain that all of the above were done by the time the Attorney General “attempted to intervene.” This is really a very lame and pathetic excuse.
At a bare minimum the attorney general who gave the Head of State and the Judge an undertaking to appear personally and conduct the trial ,which he did not honour, should have exercised constant supervision of the case.
The explanation that by the time the attorney general “attempted to intervene” is one intended for preparatory school infant minds. Indeed such an explanation by the chambers of the Attorney-General is an affront and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Guyana by offering them such a puerile explanation. Well knowing the pace at which cases in the High Court progress, I do not believe that pleadings, submissions and argument were done in this case overnight so that by the time the Attorney General “attempted to intervene”, the case would have been finished and lost.
I would imagine that if there was competent and effective supervision of the case Ms Kissoon would have been directed by the attorney general in writing to 1. refer all documents to be filed to him for checking before filing and 2. to include and incorporate his specific instruction in the case presented to the court.
It is clear that the lamentations of the Attorney General are coming late and after the fact. Thankfully on this occasion the public is not being told that the Attorney General was unaware of this case.
If the Attorney General was effectively supervising this case he would have noted the alleged failings of Ms. Kissoon. He would have noted that his presumably winning instructions had not been followed and in that case, I am sure steps would have been taken by him to correct those circumstances.
It appears that there was no such supervision which seemingly amounts to grave dereliction of duty and an explanation should be forthcoming from the Attorney General rather than a limp statement that by the time he “attempted to intervene” the case had been heard and lost. Pure and unadulterated hogwash.
And now I come to the filing of the appeal .The filing of an appeal is a serious step in legal proceedings. Flimsy appeals may be seen as a waste of the court’s time. The Attorney General, the leader of the country’s lawyers, in exemplary fashion, would not I am sure file an appeal in which he knows he has no chance of succeeding or which he knows is without substance .
I am certain that in as responsible an office in which he has been fortuitously placed, the Attorney General must have satisfied himself about the strength and chances of success of the appeal filed by him in the case with GUYTRAC .The question therefore arises, why did the Attorney General discontinue the appeal and settle the matter for such a huge sum of money when the appeal so confidently filed might have yielded nothing to GUYTRAC and Guyana would have saved nearly $300, million rather than $63 million.
The other question is if as the statement from the AG’s Chambers disclose, that the settlement provides for the much needed excavators for the NDIA, when did the AG realize that these excavators were much needed? If they were much needed, then why didn’t the AG seek a settlement when he assumed control of the case in the High Court?
Something appears rotten and stink about this settlement. A huge sum of public money has to be paid out while an appeal will be abandoned by the Attorney General to the loss and disadvantage of the people of Guyana.
Would SOCU and Sam Sittlington think that a case of misconduct in public office exists here? If they do, the occasion arises for Sam, Greg and Khem to have another celebratory drink at the Oasis, and this time, justifiably so.
Sincerely
Selwyn Persaud

---

---