Latest update April 25th, 2024 12:59 AM
Apr 15, 2012 Letters
Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr. Jerome Khan’s missive (KN, April 11), “Attacking Justice Chang is a most shallow activity.” The letter should be noted for four failings.
One is the dismissal of the criticisms of the Greene ruling using the most simplistic of arguments.
Secondly, the allegations used by Mr. Khan against others can be graphically applied to him too.
Thirdly, there is the impression that only lawyers could understand the contents of legal decisions. And fourthly, the hackneyed use of language without recognitions of the semantic complexities involved.
I will discuss each of these weaknesses beginning with the easiest one. But first; Mr. Khan’s defense of the CJ reminds one of the drama student and his teacher.
After terrible reviews of the teacher’s first play, it was the student who publicly came to his rescue at the risk of being accused of ingratiating himself. One hopes Mr. Khan is aware he can receive the same cynicism because as a lawyer he has to appear in front of the CJ.
Some lawyers have the inclination to shut out the layman’s views on legal matters in the belief that laws could only be understood by trained lawyers.
Educated people are quite capable of understanding the faults of a legal decision based on their interpretation of the relevant legislation. Secondly, Mr. Khan solves all the problems associated with the critics of the CJ by just one line – they all want to get at Mr. Chang for reasons other than legal arguments. None of the castigators have a legal point against the CJ in the eyes of Mr. Khan.
Thirdly, the very dismissal Mr. Khan uses against the CJ detractors can be used against Khan himself. He states that senior counsel, Dana Seetahal, from Trinidad is biased against the CJ because the CJ gave a devastating review of her textbook on criminal law.
How easy Mr. Khan solves polemics. Seetahal is given no credit for the legal content of her analysis of Chang’s decision on Greene. But we now enter the realm of human perfection as adumbrated by Jerome Khan. A senior Caribbean lawyer can be a biased against. So why can’t a Guyanese judge be biased in favour? Bias is bias no matter if it is for or against. Aren’t judges humans after all?
Fourthly, Mr. Khan would be wise to avoid definitive meaning of words. This is a slippery rope. He wrote that judicial decisions “can be the subject of critical, constructive comments” but unconstructive comments are dangerous.
It would never end if people argue who is more constructive and what is a constructive analysis. I can assure Mr. Khan that Seethal would say her critique was mature and analytical and his letter was unconstructive. Good luck to Mr. Khan if he thinks such an argument could have an ending
Finally (in relation to the letter) I would like to briefly reject his contention that condemnations of the CJ’s decision on Greene undermine public confidence in the court system and in the rule of law.
Nothing could more vitiate the fulcrums on which justice stands, faith in the rule of law, and the citizenry’s confidence in the judiciary than biased judges, judges that happily participate in the Executive’s efforts to reduce the independence of the judiciary, and a government that disrespects the judicial system.
May I remind Mr. Khan that the former PM of Jamaica, Bruce Golding, once remarked that a problem with the CCJ is getting judges that are not politically biased. I also would like to inform Mr. Khan that the CCJ found the Attorney-General of Guyana in contempt of court for failing to carry out a CCJ ruling on cement importation. Don’t such things bring the rule of law into disrepute?
In closing, I want to state that based on legal points, I don’t agree with the CJ’s ruling to give the Attorney-General the authority to search the homes and offices of the six leading executives of the Guyana Cricket Board.
That was, in my layman’s opinion, a seriously flawed judgement. On legal grounds too, I disagree with the CJ’s injunction against the arbitration hearing in the bauxite industry dispute. I beg to disagree with Mr. Khan in his extensive praise of Mr. Chang and the Greene decision is just one of my reasons
Frederick Kissoon
Jagdeo giving Exxon 102 cent to collect 2 cent.
Apr 25, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – The French Diplomatic Office in Guyana, in collaboration with the Guyana Olympic Association and UNICEF, hosted an exhibition on Tuesday evening at the...Kaieteur News – Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, persists in offering... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]