Dear Editor,
With respect to the letter written by Mr Adrian Anamayah under the caption ‘The association of Berbice lawyers is a vibrant and functioning one’ (SN, October 23), I did make mention of the the Berbice bar association in my original letter of September 14, but I was referring to the organization that lawyers in Berbice belong to, in the same manner that one may refer to the ‘Georgetown bar.’ I did not say that the name was the ‘Berbice Bar Association.’ The point is still the same: this association is non-functional and at best is ‘headless.’
When I referred to the ‘Guyana Bar Association’ I meant that this should speak of lawyers in all of Guyana, but it only includes lawyers from Georgetown. That was the only reason the Guyana Bar Association was mentioned.
There was mention made of two lawyers who are before the courts on different charges. Mr Adrian Anamayah said that lawyers should be disciplined for proven infractions and the charges against the two lawyers mentioned are mere allegations. One does not have to be a ‘very smart’ lawyer to understand that the experience has been that our prisons are crammed with persons on remand on mere allegations. Bail is often refused by law or at the discretion of the magistrate and very often because of the risk of the offence being repeated. Why were these lawyers still allowed to practise? Was there no risk of similar offences being committed? In the infamous Roger Khan case, Simels, a highly rated criminal lawyer in New York, was suspended from practice until the outcome of his trial. Being suspended does not mean one is guilty and can in no way interfere with any trial. The suspension of a lawyer accused of malpractice, if anything, would lend credibility to the legal profession and help to maintain its integrity and the nobility it is so famous for.
When I asked about the policing of lawyers I remembered what President Jagdeo said in Canada, namely, that in twenty years not one lawyer had been disciplined in Guyana. The question that comes to mind here is do our lawyers not do wrong, or maybe there is no disciplinary body? But of course there is a disciplinary body (and I mentioned it in my letter). It is called the Legal Practitioners Committee comprising lawyers appointed by the Chancellor, and it has its address at the Court of Appeal building. It has had, for over a decade, a lady named Ms Francis as its secretary. The chairman of the committee will hand decisions taken at any sitting to the Chancellor, the Chief Justice and the Attorney General for appropriate action to be taken. Any ‘smart’ lawyer should know that since September 2007 no member has been appointed to sit on that committee. So can it still be considered as functioning? Or are appointments made when a complaint is raised?
I did mention that a “sitting magistrate” has his law office where he does brisk business. Mr Anamayah has explained in his letter that the magistrate is on contract and receives an office allowance from the state, and that this is one of the conditions of his employment. If a magistrate for example is presiding over a matter where the defendant is charged with say, carnal knowledge, and the victim’s mother or father sees that defendant coming out of the office of that presiding magistrate, and at the end of the trial the defendant is acquitted, which genius will be able to convince the parents of that victim that the acquittal was just? I will take the liberty to suggest that the allowance given by the state is not to have the office open for business; it is to facilitate the continued rental of the office at that particular location and to keep things in a state of readiness should the magistrate not take (or be given) permanent appointment. I will say that there is too much corruption in the judiciary and this practice of allowing any magistrate to have himself so exposed and accessible to the public, only opens the door to corruption and a travesty of justice. I know that it has been the practice in the past and that there are magistrates outside Berbice who indulge in the same wrongdoing, but that does not make it right.
The Guyana Association of Legal Practioners (Berbice bar) which Mr Adrian Anamayah described as vibrant and functioning had its last meeting on July 18, 2008. The President, Mr Joseph Anamayah has been sick and out of practice for almost a year now. Mr Rodwell Jugmohan, who was the secretary, has long since resigned, and Mr Mursaline Bacchus, who was the Vice-President has also resigned. Can any sensible person say that this organization is “vibrant and functioning”? It is dead!
After my letter was published I received a letter from Mr Adrian Anamayah to attend a meeting to discuss (1) the functioning of the land registry and (2) the letter written by Charrandass Persaud. No sir, the meeting was not to elect new office bearers or even to replace the ones who had resigned, so that it could have been said that it now had an executive body. It was a reaction to my letter. This “vibrant and functioning” organization did not even suggest a gift exchange for Christmas 2008. On October 19, 2009, a prominent Berbice lawyer, Mr John Oudit Persaud, who was a former probation officer, former magistrate; former land court judge and a former member of the Rotary Club and Lodge was laid to rest and no effort was made by the association to send a sympathy card and what was worse, very few lawyers attended the funeral. Tributes were paid by the Rotary Club (which I went to represent with other Rotarians) and the Lodge (among others) and when the request came for someone from the bar association to make a contribution none of these “vibrant members” was there and of the few who were present none, including myself, showed any sign of wanting to speak on behalf of this bar association. The recent torture of a 14-year-old has seen responses from a number of persons and organizations. Where is the “vibrant and functioning Berbice bar? Oh, in November 6, 2009, I received a letter from the Guyana Association of Legal Practitioners on a letterhead that identifies Joseph Anamayah as President and Adrian Anamayah as Secretary/Treasurer, and it was signed by Adrian Anamayah as Assistant Secretary.
And finally, Mr Adrian Anamayah said that “For years, the Association has been bringing issues that affect litigants and lawyers to the relevant authorities.” That cannot be further from the truth because for years the only issue that was raised by this association was one affecting the processing of land matters. This matter was against a clerk at the registry in New Amsterdam and was heard in the presence of five lawyers from Berbice, the then land court judge, Mr Doraisammy, Ms Juliet Sattaur, the Registrar, and the clerk concerned. A decision was taken subsequently and a team of lawyers was selected to meet with Dr Luncheon and/or Dr Nanda Gopaul after correspondence had been sent about holding a meeting. That meeting never happened and the matter was left as it was.
Has this organization ever addressed the deplorable condition of the lock-ups or the fact that persons arrested are beaten and tortured to give confessions? Did it ever seek to have a look at the conditions affecting prisoners at the New Amsterdam prison? Or the fact that there is no juvenile facility for young offenders here? Did it ever make an effort to speed up the processing of cases at any level? Or the fact that magistrates do not sit for afternoon sessions and judges do? The hearing of cases in the High Court in New Amsterdam is so structured and organized that one can plan to have lunch and be able to make that appointment, or a lawyer can ask for and get a hearing in the afternoon at, say, 1.30pm. Does this not need addressing? Wake Mr Adrian Anamayah and all the lawyers in Berbice who still believe that they have a “vibrant and functioning” bar association. They should get a grip of the stark reality that the legal profession in Berbice is going to the dogs. We, as lawyers in collaboration with the powers that be can put it back where it belongs, but we have to want to do it. I do!
Further mention of this matter (by me) will only be done at a meeting of this “vibrant and functioning” bar association to elect new office bearers or to replace the sick and resigned ones.
Yours faithfully,
Charrandass Persaud
