In time, Mr. Khan may agree with those who criticized this ruling
A short while ago. a certain gentleman remarked that Guyana is both blessed and cursed because of its political history. He said that the curse relates to the fact that there was hardly anything which could be said or done without someone attaching a political twist to it.
I believe that there is so much truth in that statement , that many Pastors, Pandits and ‘Majies’ are often accused of preaching sermons with latent political intents. Some of us are so politically educated that we can attribute a sudden change is the weather to a political source.
My observations are here made, against the background that Mr. Jerome Khan has recently openly criticized three Attorneys –At-Law for the positions they took in the Justice Chang/Henry Greene/DPP decision.
Previously, Mr. Khan had accused one of the Attorneys of having an axe to grind with Justice Chang, but the way things are unfolding it seems to me that Mr. Khan would have a cutlass, a pitch-fork, a pick-axe, and a Dutch-axe to grind with anyone who dares to criticize Justice Chang’s decision.
In his most recent and emotionally charged letter he lashed out at the Stabroek News for inviting a junior Attorney in preference of a senior one for a comment on the matter. In that regard, I would respectfully direct his attention to Job 32:9 of the Holy Bible which reads as follows:
“Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.”(KJV).
It is interesting to note that in this instance the word judgment in the Holy Bible is spelt without the letter e immediately after letter g. That apart another version of the Bible said:
“Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand justice.”
Mr. Khan should readily and easily understand the wisdom in this scripture for he himself being a junior Attorney-at-Law, is saying that he understand Justice Chang’s decision much better that his senior colleagues in Messrs Backer and Seetahal.
I would simply advise Mr. Khan that as he grinds his implements he should do so with extreme caution. I have had a cursory look at the Judgment and I would confess that from a layman’s point of view, it cannot be properly understood after reading it a couple of times. I would further suggest to Mr. Khan that his reading of the judgment two years from now will yield a variation in his understanding thereof. Who knows? He may then agree with those who criticized it.
No one can justifiably gainsay that the judgment will have a long lasting effect on the administration of justice in Guyana and since its acceptance or rejection has not yet been finally settled, we should now allow things to flow naturally. No one expected such a decision to be accepted with ease and comfort, but at the same time we need to be reminded of a statement cited some years ago, by Justice A.F.R. Bishop, now Professor Bishop who quoted from Dionysus of Halicarnassus and said:
“Time is the best interpreter of every doubtful law.”
I would respectfully posit that the same can be said of every doubtful and problematic court decision like the one under focus at this time. Whether or not it takes a firm root in our judicial landscape, or it leads to what Professor Bishop calls an “administrative unworkability “of our justice system will be determined by time. Until then , it may be useful for scholars like Jerome Khan to leave the matter alone.
Certainly, It is rather unfortunate that many of us have not seen a problem and or a solution with the decision, but have instead have seen the CJ, the COP, the DPP , the Politicians, and the government and that is very, very sad, indeed.