Dear Editor
I FIND it astonishing that several articles concerning matters pending before the court are freely published in the Guyana press without any apparent inhibition; with no thought given to any repercussions that may flow from breaches of the Contempt of Court Act.
An attorney defending someone charged with serious criminal offences is seemingly free to criticize the prosecution’s right to charge and state the detail of his client’s case in the press. Is this uniquely Guyanese practice explained away by the fact that the litigant who alleges contempt, and likewise the Attorney-General were he to do so, must prove contempt to the higher criminal standard rather than on a balance of probabilities?
The Collins English Dictionary defines contempt of court as “the wilful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law or legislative body”.

It was firmly established at common law that the publication of material calculated to prejudice the fair trial of a pending case was an absolute offence. That intent may be inferred, however, without the need for overt proof or a desire to interfere with the course of justice – so long as the act of publication creates a real risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. Criminal trials on indictment are heard by juries comprising randomly-selected citizens of Guyana, many of whom will inevitably be readers, and thus influenced by the content of the national daily and weekly newspapers.

Part III of Chapter 5:05 of the Laws of Guyana provides that certain publications that would otherwise be a contempt of Court are not so. Thus, for example, if at the time of publication the publisher neither knew nor had any reasonable grounds for suspecting that proceedings were pending before the court, he would have a defence. Another example would be where at the time of distribution of the publication, a person neither knew nor suspected that the publication contained, or was likely to contain, material that amounts to a contempt of court. It would be implausible to think that a defendant’s attorney could claim such unawareness – certainly not an attorney with the legal brilliance of one Anil Nandlall.

The practice is not limited to criminal matters, such as in respect of the misconduct charges brought against former Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh and former CEO of NICIL, Winston Brassington. The learned former Attorney-General has also commented in the press that both the Director and Deputy Director of the State Assets Recovery Agency (SARA) are holding their posts unlawfully – presumably knowing fully well that legal proceedings challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the SARA legislation are pending in the High Court.

Mr. Editor, one is left to wonder whether Mr. Nandlall is merely campaigning politically, testing the Attorney-General’s tolerance or just holding up a middle finger to the legal system of Guyana. He is no doubt confident that he would not be jailed for up to 3 months – and clearly knows he can afford the maximum GYD 250,000.00 fine that the court may impose were he to be found guilty of Contempt of Court. Whatever the real reason(s) may be, disregarding the authority of the court is unbecoming of persons who know better.

Regards
Name Provided