Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr Jerome Khan’s missive (SN, April 11), ‘Organizations which have criticized Chief Justice Chang’s decision have their own extra-legal agenda.‘ The letter should be noted for four failings. One is the dismissal of the criticisms of the Greene ruling using the most simplistic of arguments. Secondly, the allegations used by Mr Khan against others can be graphically applied to him too. Thirdly, there is the impression that only lawyers could understand the contents of legal decisions. And fourthly, there is the hackneyed use of language without recognition of the semantic complexities involved.
Some lawyers have the inclination to shut out the layman’s views on legal matters in the belief that laws could only be understood by trained lawyers. Educated people are quite capable of understanding the faults of a legal decision based on their interpretation of the relevant legislation. Secondly, Mr Khan solves all the problems associated with the critics of the CJ by just one line – they all want to get at Mr Chang for reasons other than legal arguments. None of the castigators have a legal point against the CJ in the eyes of Mr Khan.
Thirdly, the very dismissal Mr Khan uses against the CJ detractors can be used against him. He suggests that Senior Counsel Dana Seetahal from Trinidad is biased against the CJ because the CJ gave a devastating review of her textbook on criminal law. How easily Mr Khan solves polemics. Ms Seetahal is given no credit for the legal content of her analysis of Mr Chang’s decision in the Greene case. But we now enter the realm of human perfection as adumbrated by Jerome Khan. A senior Caribbean lawyer can be a biased against, so why can’t a Guyanese lawyer be biased in favour? Bias is bias no matter if it is for or against.
Fourthly, Mr Khan would be wise to avoid definitive meanings of words. This is a slippery rope. He wrote that judicial decisions “can be the subject of critical, constructive comments” but unconstructive comments are dangerous.
It would never end if people argue who is more constructive and what is a constructive analysis. I can assure Mr Khan that Ms Seetahal would say her critique was mature and analytical and his letter was unconstructive. Good luck to Mr Khan if he thinks such an argument could have an ending.
Finally (in relation to the letter) I would like to briefly reject his contention that condemnations of the CJ’s decision in the Greene case could undermine public confidence in the court system and the rule of law. Nothing could more vitiate the fulcrum on which justice stands, faith in the rule of law, and the citizenry’s confidence in the judiciary than those who happily participate in the executive’s efforts to reduce the independence of the judiciary, and a government that disrespects the judicial system. I also would like to inform Mr Khan that the CCJ found against Guyana in the Trinidad cement importation case. Don’t such things bring the rule of law into disrepute?
In closing, I want to state that based on legal points, I don’t agree with the CJ’s ruling to give the Attorney-General the authority to search the homes and offices of the six leading executives of the Guyana Cricket Board. That was in my layman’s opinion a seriously flawed judgement. I beg to disagree with Mr Khan in his extensive praise of Mr Chang, and the Greene decision is just one of my reasons.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
