Dear Editor,
On December 13, 2019 I phoned the Court of Appeal Registry for an update on my case. This was a follow up, after the submission of my petition the day before in connection with my vigil. I regard such submission and a suspension of my vigil, as the end of a phase in my call for justice, and the start of a period to allow the justice system to respond to my call. I was told by the senior registry officer that no hearing date was set, and that documents were still being searched for. Hence there is no change in the official position since my press statement of November 20 last, and no explanation offered on the failure to contact me as promised. These actions show a deliberate mismanagement of my case, and amount to victimisation against me, as appellant.
What is more is that I was also asked if I have a “certificate” from the High Court decision, which certificate is also being searched for. This is a provocation. I have stated since my May 20, 2019 address to the Appeal Court, that the High Court episode was a hearing behind my back. The Attorney-at-law representing the State did not challenge my narrative. The Appeal Court ruled that the High Court had no jurisdiction in my matter.
New phase of my efforts
I believe everyone should be concerned about this anomalous state of affairs as it affects the administration of justice in Guyana. I also believe transparency is now critical to the future of my case, and therefore in the next phase to attain justice I will focus on calling on the Registry to give clarity to the direction it is taking. In the face of provocation I will maintain my call for a hearing date for my appeal and an investigation of the unlawful High Court episode.
I wish to thank those who gave their time and energy to join me on the weekly vigil and all those who signed the public petition, from which twelve persons were selected as signatories. Also, the petitioners in the shoes of Rodney resonate the fact that, though not on trial, Walter Rodney was found liable for possession of explosives in the 1982 trial. All persons on the vigil also helped to inspire the overseas letter-writing aspect, which indeed continues. However the vigil is now suspended as it needs to give way to fresh initiatives locally.
Clarifications needed
As regards the direction which need clarification, most of all the Registry must clarify how the High Court certificate is relevant to my appeal, since the appellate court has ruled the High Court process unlawful, and hence those entire proceedings are ineffective from the outset. Also, given that the certificate and all connected documents where they exist, have always been solely in the custody of the Court since 2010, why or how is it that such documents cannot be retrieved after more than four weeks. Finally, the Registry must give regular reports on its case management. Continued silence would seem to implicate the Registry in past mischief.
Yours faithfully,
Donald Rodney
