On May 9 at 17:05 hrs I was about to enter Brickdam Cathedral for the Requiem Mass in memory of my late brother, who was interred in Maryland, USA on May 7, when the outstretched hand of a male greeted me, which I thought was someone expressing their condolences. However, the person duly informed me he was a court marshal from the Supreme Court, and he was there in relation to a petition from my wife in pursuit of a divorce. After a brief exchange of words, I accepted the petition as a respondent, with my wife as the petitioner.
Editor, what was most disturbing was that after the court marshal entered the church, 15 minutes later he proceeded up the aisle peeking into the pews. Thereafter, turning around I motioned to him to go outside, and followed him hastily. I wasted no time in drawing attention to his uncouth behaviour, and said that the fact he was disturbing the Mass was a clear indication of disrespect to all and sundry, and I would be highlighting this publicly. While he did say he was sorry, an apology that I partly accepted, I was told that I had to sign for the document.
My, oh my, here we go again! Seriously, what is there to celebrate, in 50 years of Independence, as it relates to the judiciary? Would this have occurred 50 years ago? Definitely not! By the way, would this act be tolerated in a Mosque or a Mandir?
Since, I am aware that the statutes permit a court marshal in the execution of his duty to visit any place at any time, irrespective of the occasion, for the presentation of a document, nevertheless, the visit ought to be one-off in nature and definitely not twice, as happened on Monday. While I didn’t have the time to peruse the document immediately, since this would have been unethical in a place of worship, does it not require the marshal to produce some form of identification or disclose his full name out of courtesy? Further, the petitioner should be present to identify the individual, but this wasn’t done.
Later in the evening upon perusing the petition, much to my amazement, my last known address was again incorrectly stated. 15 Louisa Demerara, Georgetown, has never existed. An examination of a road map of Georgetown would have indicated this, or the use of a smart phone, or a computer. For the record it’s Louisa Row. The stretch of roadway heading northward from Hadfield Street, to Brickdam, is Brummel Place, Stabroek. Under the circumstances this geographical blunder which appears on the petition with a signature affixed on behalf of the Supreme Court Registrar, along with that of the Attorney-at-Law, with the latter being the former Minister of Education, surely leaves much to be desired. As a consequence, is the petition legitimate?
I do hope the publication of this letter attracts the attention of the Registrar of the Supreme Court.