Juliet Holder-Allen should be a little more circumspect with her law credentials
I am appalled that Juliet Holder-Allen would sign such a letter as an Attorney At Law. Clearly, her reasoning does not reside in law or fact.
First, Ms. Holder-Allen incorrectly asserts the existence of a “the legal contract governing Indentureship between Britain and India.” Any serious student of Guyanese history knows that the contracts of indentureship were between individuals and planters (or their agents in India).
Second, Ms. Holder-Allen incorrectly asserts, “The Agreement is still alive today and can be enforced.” Any first year law student knows that the enforcement of a bilateral contract is predicated upon the existence of a party against whom enforcement is sought.
I am quite sure that Ms. Holder-Allen would be hard pressed to find a single indentured labourer (since they are all dead) whom she is seeking to repatriate to India.
Third, Ms. Holder-Allen incorrectly asserts, “The agreement covered the subjects and their Descendants. The Agreement is still alive today and can be enforced.” Presumably, Ms. Holder-Allen (under the guise of contract law) is seeking to repatriate all Guyanese, who are Indian descendants, to India. However, she fails to state a legal doctrine under which the descendants of indentured servants are required to tender “specific performance” of the contract in which they were not parties.
Fourth, enforcement of a contract would require an injured party to seek enforcement of a provision of the contract against the breaching party. How has the presence of the Indian descendants of indentured laborers transformed Ms. Holder-Allen into an injured party? And even if she was injured, how did she become the successor in interest for the planters (or their agent) who brought Indians to Guyana?
Juliet Holder-Allen should be a little more circumspect with her law credentials.
Fort Lauderdale, FL