The GTUC has not been targeted by the Rodney commission’s terms of reference

Dear Editor,

I write in relation to the letter published in your newspaper of Saturday, August 9, 2014, under the hand of Selwyn A Pieters, a Canadian lawyer and captioned ‘Unprofess-

ional.’ On many occasions I have had to defend accusations against Mr Pieters that he always seemed out of touch with what prevails in our jurisprudence. His published grouse confirms the belief of his detractors. Is he for real? He claims full standing for the GTUC which is not targeted by the PPP/C’s Terms of Reference (TORs). No accusation or allegation has been made against the GTUC to date.

On the other hand many false accusations have been made against the PNCR, with no real attempt to pursue TOR 1 (how Rodney met his death). There is a clear strategy to drag out the Rodney Commission of Inquiry (RCOI) in the vain hope that the PPP/C would benefit somehow politically. Such benefits have not materialised and, therefore, the PNCR is concerned that witnesses are being hidden from the RCOI, who should have testified ever since and whose testimony would bring an end to this ‘soap opera.’

It was in this context that I questioned the status of witnesses not brought to the RCOI and those who have not completed their testimonies.

Mr Lincoln Lewis has been slated to appear before the RCOI on several previous occasions; in fact, he was slated to be the first witness for one such session and Mr Pieters travelled from Canada for that purpose only to be told that some other witness would be taken. I had also prepared my cross-examination of Mr Lewis and was disappointed when he was not called.

It is mind boggling, therefore, that Mr Pieters should harbour the belief that I have to get his or anyone else’s permission to address the commission about the attendance of his only witness, when the failure of his witness to testify is eating into our taxpayer dollars and dragging out the proceedings.

If that is the position in Canada, I must confess that Mr Pieters is out of touch indeed with what obtains in Guyana.

Incidentally, he did not seek my permission to cross-examine Ms Karen De Souza on behalf of the PNC; very unprofessional indeed. Fortunately no damage was done. Likewise, I am sure that he was not authorized by the Guyana Police Force to raise the question in the RCOI about the need to appoint an attorney to represent the Force’s interest in the commission, and generally he has been interfering with the witnesses of lawyers accredited by the commission.

Yours faithfully,
Basil Williams




















Around the Web