Dear Editor,
In a letter appearing in Stabroek News of Monday August 1, captioned ‘Kissoon’s fears are misplaced,’ Mr Anil Nandlall, signing as “MP and Attorney-at-Law for President Bharrat Jagdeo,” states that the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of expression in a manner which may prejudice or influence the outcome of a pending case, or which may bring the administration of justice into disrepute, constitutes a contempt of court.
I wonder if it has escaped Mr Nandlall to offer such cautionary advice to his client, the President, who is notorious for abusing his high office for many improper purposes including making comments prejudicial to matters before the court and others which can bring the administration of justice into disrepute. If he has, it would be helpful to readers if Mr Nandlall would comment on an article appearing in Stabroek News of July 30, in which the President makes loaded references to criminal charges against a person involved in a matter which the President as Minister of Information is currently adjudicating.
Yet Mr Nandlall feels comfortable to sermonise that Mr Kissoon’s comments “assume even greater magnitude when they are made by a party involved in the litigation.” I believe that such statements – and Mr Nandlall’s inferences – pale in comparison to statements repeatedly made by the executive President and head of state who has been less than proper, tactful or discreet in expressing his views on court matters, and who in a complaint against the beleaguered CNS 6, has demonstrated unmistakable bias and abuse of presidential power.
Mr Nandlall’s letter also states that Mr Kissoon’s lawyers (Mr Khemraj Ramjattan and I) had requested that if the injunction restraining the repetition of the alleged offending words by Mr Kissoon was made interlocutory, then an early date should be fixed for a trial of the action. This is simply not true and it would help Mr Nandlall to read before he writes.
Nowhere in the eight page decision of the Honourable Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang in the case Bharrat Jagdeo v Frederick Kissoon et al for an injunction is there any reference to a request for an early date. In fact it was the Chief Justice who wrote in the final paragraph of the ruling handed down on December 8, 2010: “In the circumstances, the court sees it fit to grant the plaintiff the interlocutory relief sought; but at the same time, the court is of the view that the injunction should not be unnecessarily prolonged. As such, efforts should be made [to have the case] heard and determined as early as possible.” (Emphasis mine)
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
