Dear Editor,
A letter by Mr Anil Nandlall has been published in the Monday (August 1) edition of the SN and in the Sunday edition of KN, in which he appeared unhappy with two columns of mine that specifically dealt with my concern that the President’s libel case against me and the KN was called exactly one year after papers were filed. Perhaps unhappy is a light word; Mr Nandlall may have been displeased at the contents of the articles. He stated the two columns imply that justice may have been tampered with through the early trial and that I may have a fear about getting a fair hearing
Let me say up front that I respect the legal mind of Mr Nandlall. Despite his service to the PPP, I have always had a good relationship with him and I don’t believe any malice or mischief was intended in his letter. But I am afraid he has seriously misread the angles of my two columns. This response here is intended to correct those misconceptions. First, let me say that I never requested my lawyers to seek of the acting Chief Justice an early date. I leave the experts to do their job. Secondly, I asked one of my lawyers who was the chief attorney during the injunction phase of the hearing if he requested the fast approach and he said no.
That lawyer is Mr Khemraj Ramjattan. Mr Nandlall didn’t name which one of my attorneys petitioned the Chief Justice for the fast approach. I was honestly surprised at the July start because all Guyanese know court cases take years and years even for a first hearing. It was only natural then to ask Mr Ramjattan if he solicited the quick date. He told me no. It is not the early trial that is in contention here. It is if it was requested. It would appear from Mr Nandlall’s letter that one of my lawyers did seek the quick hearing. It is for Mr Nandlall to identify him. Thirdly, Mr Nandlall was incandescently clear that after the Full Court hearing on the injunction was complete, the trial had to begin. What Mr Nandlall must know is that the Full Court decision has been appealed, so as it stands now, the injunction issue is still in litigation. I will leave it to Mr Nandlall and my lawyers to determine which should come first – the trial itself or the injunction appeal.
Fourthly, I was advised by persons with an equal grasp of the law that given the huge backlog in the High Court that the Chief Justice could not have manoeuvred a priority one year after papers were filed. If I was misled on that then an apology is in order. But was I misled?
Nowhere in those two articles did I posit the fear that justice would not be served in the President’s libel suit. The essence of the two columns was why such an early date.
I thought that was a fair question because of (I repeat) the colossal backlog.
Here is the explanation offered to me and I like to remind readers that I am willing to concede that the Chief Justice could have prioritized his list.
The fulcrum of my debate is the backlog. I was instructed that even if the Chief Justice wanted to assist the particular lawyer who, according to Mr Nandlall, petitioned for an early trial, it could not have seen the light one year after because the list of important cases is simply too long.
People with legal training insisted that there were injunctions that are standing for a long time and they needed to be contested in court long before the President’s libel case.
One situation cited to me was that lawyers have obtained an injunction from Justice Claudette La Bennett against the Guyana Revenue Authority from compelling them to pay $200, 000 for a practice certificate.
I reiterate for Mr Nandlall’s benefit: the main thrust of the two columns he referred to in his letter was the early trial against a gargantuan pile waiting to find the light of day.
It was not an expression of fear that I will not get justice.
To claim that I am scared of the true dispensation of justice in that particular libel suit is to cast aspersions on the trial judge, Justice Reynolds.
I remind Mr Nandlall that in one of the two articles, I specifically said that there is no reason for me to feel uncertain about Justice Reynolds. And there was no criticism of the Chief Justice either.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
