Dear Editor,
You will recall my earlier letter to you wherein I sought to address what I considered to be a strong element of farce associated with the swearing of oaths to affidavits in Guyana today. It is significant that my assertion that many thousands of affidavits purporting to have been sworn to before Commissioners for Oaths are never sworn to at all remains unchallenged, which suggests that the unholy farce continues unabated. Men are afraid to touch it and I understand their reluctance. But let me try again by recommending some positive action that should occasion the public and official conscience, if there be one, little disquiet and relieve their justified embarrassment. Quite apart from the implicit lie in the jurat, the legal term for the certificate of the Commissioner at the bottom left hand of the affidavit, I confirm that my main disturbance flows from the inherent disrespect for the Divinity of whatever religion, the Holy Books of which are invoked by the supposed swearers, the deponents.
May I make it clear – I write as a Christian, but in this plural society I claim that the respect that I seek to preserve for the name of my God would apply in proper measure to the other main religions that cover the non-Christian community in our country.
In total ignorance of and in equal disregard for the origin of the religion-based oath for legal purposes in Guyana, I am thoroughly convinced that it is not at all necessary, especially in regard to the written word.
Again, I know not and care not to enquire what are the official attitudes of the other two main religions to the matter of the Oath itself, for the very reason that whatever the true origin, the fact that the oath continues to suffer such blatant abuse and disrespect, at least in our land, presents a compelling argument for some alternative means of according credibility to the written word.
For the comfort and edification of the Christian community I propose a reference to the simple words of Jesus Christ which appear in His famous Sermon on the Mount as reported at Chapter 5 verses 34 to 37 of the gospel of Matthew which I quote in full.
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne, or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes” be ;Yes” and your ‘No’, ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”
I accordingly propose as a solution that would avoid all trouble, both religious and secular, the requisite amendment to our Constitution, Civil Law Act, or whichever, in words which give effect to or resemble the following:-
“Where in any Act or other written law or by the common law a person is required to subscribe to or take any oath (of a religious nature) in order to certify the truth or his honest personal belief in the accuracy of any writing made in his name, it shall be sufficient if that person in lieu of such oath shall subscribe his name or signature at the foot or end of such writing the following words, to wit “I certify (or affirm) on my honour that the foregoing words are true and correct.” The subscription of such name or signature shall have the same effect in relation to such person as if he had subscribed to an oath or statutory declaration under the pre-existing law.”
You will note, dear Editor, that I have tactfully refrained from recommending disturbance of the oath administered in our Courts that govern and precede the giving of oral or other evidence by a live witness. Suffice it to say that in this regard I should be happy to have every witness simply affirm the truth of his/her evidence, an option that remains available today in all our tribunals.
I must in fairness concede the possibility that the very involvement of the Holy Book of one’s religion, the reference to the Divinity allied with the solemnity of the Court’s proceedings may well deter the witness from acts of perjury.
Should this letter be met with the stony or embarrassed silence that attended the former, it would afford some indication as to the existence of a legal conscience within the community mainly affected.
If, however, that community should embark upon an assiduous tearing apart of my humble suggestion as made above, it would afford me intense satisfaction that our hearts, minds and consciences are still alive.
Let us however keep in mind that the basic intent of all this exercise is that we strive to eliminate the lie from our official business at a time when truth remains under siege.
Yours faithfully,
Leon O. Rockcliffe
