Dear Editor,
In a recent issue of Stabroek News, you kindly published my letter on the inherent farce regarding the requirement for the swearing of oaths to affidavits (‘JPs largely unregulated, flout procedures,’ April 4). I have not since received any phone call or observed any comment from within the legal community challenging the accuracy of my observation or accusing the writer of any degree of exaggeration. I find it somewhat disappointing for the following reason.
We have established a social culture – for want of a better word – that moves us both as individuals and groups to view certain poig-nant observations as merely ships that pass in the night; that will disappear over the horizon and out of sight forever.
Since we are not bruised and do not suffer personal hurt we carry on hoping that somehow the situation will right itself without our own involvement or sacrifice. “This is Guyana,” is the current shameless reflection.
In the event that the raising of this issue so soon again should cause me to be viewed as some kind of spoilsport, I am pleased to plead guilty. I ought to remind those would-be accusers, however, that we of the legal community in particular must recognize that for as long as we choose to tolerate seemingly innocent falsehood as an essential ingredient of our legal system, we forfeit the right to condemn falsity in its more lethal aspects. By continuing in the present vein, we should already have been culpable of making our own unhealthy contribution to the untruth we love to condemn in others.
As a probable offshoot of my impersonal observation there was reported in the press some interaction between the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs and a member of that body concerned with the activities of Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths to Affidavits. I am not qualified to enter into that controversy. What I thought appropriate and still propose as desirable is that the Attorney General would take the opportunity to elucidate for general public education the legal functions of the Justice of Peace in particular, as well as the paid services, if any, the JP may render to the public. Where the swearing of affidavits is concerned, I advocate as reasonable a fee of no more than $300.
I noticed in the Sunday, April 18 edition of Kaieteur News the plaintive cry of the current President of the Guyana Bar Association regarding the non-appointment of Senior Counsel for the past thirteen years. In his brief lament, President Housty reminded us of the criteria for appointment such as high intellectual capacity, knowledge of the law, pursuit of excellence, reputation for honesty, independence of mind, moral courage and a host of qualities that might qualify the candidate for papal election.
The article suggests that Mr Housty is satisfied that we possess in our profession at present a sufficient number of such gentry who conform with those criteria and who are willing and available for appointment. I am in the happy position of ruling myself ineligible for such office and therefore can claim some neutrality and independence of thought on the matter.
As an advocate of the simpler and more basic things in life, I should like to demur and invite Mr Housty to phone me and whisper quietly in my ear his reply to the following enquiries and observations:
1. At the last annual general meeting of the Guyana Bar Association in 2009 there were only thirteen members of the Bar in attendance. Were any of his candidates present?
2. The Legal Practitioners Committee for addressing complaints against attorneys-at-law by members of the public has not been convened since the year 2008. Has any candidate voiced concern?
3. Does his proposed slate include any candidate from Berbice or Essequibo – or I nearly forgot, any female?
4. There is a legal fiction that the Official Gazette provides statutory legal notice of appointments, legal court fixtures, sales at execution, transports and mortgages, trade marks, bills of sale and most important, statutes and subsidiary legislation. Is there any public concern demonstrated by any candidate that this precious public document may be obtained only after challenging the sturdy iron gates of the presidential complex? Is no one disturbed over such a blatant legal farce?
In my mind the glory of wearing silk must be earned also by demonstration of due concern over the mundane observations made above.
I patiently await that telephone call.
Yours faithfully,
Leon O. Rockcliffe
Attorney-at-Law
