Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter captioned “Is the Bar association asleep?” (07.11.25) by M.Y. Bacchus which the editor chose to caption in a certain way, without an opportunity being given to respond, prior to publication.
In addition to its core responsibility of advancing the interests and development of lawyers, the legal profession and the practice of law in Guyana, the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) has also a broader mandate to speak to and advocate for issues which concern the society at large especially in areas that affect social justice and the rule of law in our society, a natural consequence of our professional remit.
As attorneys however, there are certain norms and mores that have to be adhered to at all times. One of these is the concept of “sub judice” which mandates that when matters are before the court, attorneys are precluded from commenting on and/or expressing a view on the merits of the matter.
Within this context therefore, the GBA would address issues of interest and concern in broad terms. It is also why for example, the GBA chose to restate its concerns about the Chancellor/CJ issue only after a ruling was made by the court.
In the instant case, it is ironic that in relation to one of the matters referred to by Mr Bacchus, the GBA made known its views on the phenomenon labeled as ‘cheque-book justice’ by Mr Justice Winston Moore in an article in the Stabroek News of June 25th, 2007 headlined “‘Cheque-book’ justice sad indictment of culture, morals – Bar Association President” and in subsequent articles in that newspaper. At the very least, an editorial note to that effect should have been appended.
Further, the next day after the publication of the letter, the Stabroek News newspaper of November 26th, 2007 carried the headline “Shooting Incident involving Minister settled out of Court”, which illustrates far more eloquently than any statement can, a crucial element of the problem.
Until and unless Guyanese are motivated to preserve and protect the safety of the entire society for the greater good and that no amount of money can persuade them to drop cases, then the prosecution of such matters will always be in jeopardy.
And the society at large will be exposed to potential recidivists. It is perhaps appropriate to reprint the article of June 25th 2007 mentioned earlier for the benefit of persons like Mr. Bacchus, who are unacquainted with the bar’s stated position.
As regards the issue of harsh sentences, the law in its present state presumes that narcotics of a certain quantity are for the purposes of trafficking and thus this attracts much more severe penalties, with little possibility of mitigation.
The GBA is on record as advocating that some discretionary latitude be given to magistrates in sentencing as well as the introduction of sentencing guidelines so as to reduce the apparent anomalies that sometimes occur. To date the policy makers have yet to respond positively.
In closing might I suggest that in light of the misplaced somnolence ascribed to the GBA, that this letter when printed, should be entitled, “The Editor was asleep!”
Yours faithfully
Kashir A Khan
Attorney-at-law
President
Guyana Bar Association
