OPPOSITION LEADERSHIP SPLITS   
--Trinidad, Guyana examples  
By Rickey Singh
IN POLITICS, they say, particularly party politics, all things are possible. For the major opposition parties of Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana, they are currently finding out how possible it is for once very close leadership colleagues to also publicly demonstrate bitterness and hostility against each other - much to the distress of their loyal followers and the amusement of supporters of governing parties.

Both in Trinidad and Tobago and in Guyana, splits in the hierarchical structures of the opposition United National Congress-Alliance (UNC-A) and People's National Congress Reform (PNCR) have deteriorated to levels that expose serious doubts about their capacity to wrest State power from the respective governing parties - People's National Movement (PNM)  and People’s Progressive Party (PPP).

As this column was being written, the UNC-A's founder-leader, Basdeo Panday, remained a pale shadow of the once very charismatic and crafty politician, who had managed to successfully lead his party across a traditional race-based electoral divide to replace the PNM that had grown accustomed to holding the reins of State power since 1956.   

Not only has the internal conflicts in the UNC-A destroyed his public image and hopes of the party's return to power under his leadership, but as of last week, Panday was facing a serious threat of legal action from his once erstwhile colleague, the flamboyant Jack Warner, a name deeply associated with regional and international football.

Warner, a very popular parliamentarian of the UNC-A -- of which he is a leading financier, and a political thorn in the side of Prime Minister Patrick Manning's PNM, was accused by Panday of being in collusion with the Manning administration to undermine opposition unity by fostering divisions within the party, including working to remove him from the leadership helm.  

While Warner was consulting last Wednesday with a high-level legal team, including a British Queen's Counsel, Allan Newman, and Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, who had served as Attorney General in a Panday-led UNC administration, Guyana's Opposition Leader, Robert Corbin was confirming his determination to defend his leadership of the PNCR at its two-day 16th Biennial Congress, which got underway on Friday. 

Overtures were quietly being made to Warner, by some influential figures of both the UNC-A and the society, to postpone his planned legal action against Panday, as all sides of the opposition may end up as ‘losers’, one way or the other.

Murray vs Corbin 
But in Guyana, Corbin, now in his second term as head of the PNCR, was displaying confidence of victory to retain the leadership against a group of some five challengers, whose nominations had been announced although withdrawals were expected before election of office bearers take place. 

However, that confidence may have been contrived to blunt a late initiative by his slate of challengers to withdraw and leave Winston Murray, the party's former chairman, to be the sole challenger to Corbin.

The prevailing thinking as the congress got underway, was that if the late 'unity' of expediency holds, Murray could emerge as the stunning victor, with hopes of fostering a new image to a party badly in need of it, and one likely to pose a more serious challenge to the PPP administration.

The marked difference in the leadership politics of the UNC-A and PNCR is that in the case of the latter, allegations of electoral malpractices kept surfacing. A dictatorial style has been a constant claim against that of Panday. But time for leadership replacement appears to be the common mantra in both of these major parties.

The PNC has long become identified with rigged elections under its late founder-leader, Forbes Burnham and his successor, the late Desmond Hoyte, to maintain a firm grip on State power for 24 years -- from 1968 to 1992.

Among the major parties of the Caribbean Community, the PNC, as it was originally known before its ‘Reform' attachment prior to the 1992 election that marked the restoration of electoral democracy, had acquired the unflattering reputation of having made of electoral malpractices a fine political art. 

It has been consistent in its rejection of accusations of rigged elections to achieve and sustain State power, even in the face of documented reports from national, regional and international monitors of elections in the country.

Ironically, with the spread of its internal conflicts over policies and leadership qualities, it found itself on the defensive against electoral rigging arrangements in the compilation of the register of voters for its previous 15th biennial congress. For last week's 16th biennial congress, the charges of electoral malpractices were even more fierce and threatening for incumbent leader, Corbin, with the odds still in his favour.  

At the 15th congress,  Corbin, who, as Minister of National Mobilisation under the presidency of Forbes Burnham,  faced a leadership challenge from Vincent Alexander, a longstanding representative of the party on the Guyana Elections Commission and currently Registrar of the University of Guyana.

For last week's congress, he was facing a slate of five nominated candidates. Among them, prior to a ‘show-of-unity’ media briefing on Thursday, were Dr Richard Van West Charles, a former Health Minister in Burnham's cabinet and also his son-in-law; and Winston Murray, who had quit the party's chairmanship last year over disagreements on policies and strategies to replace the PPP in government. 

Van West Charles had emerged as the most fierce and consistent critic of the arrangements for the elections of office bearers, and submitted his concerns to the accreditation committee. 

In rejecting allegations of mischief afoot to maintain the leadership status quo, the party's secretariat informed the media of arrangements to have the electoral process monitored by a panel of independent and eminent persons  described as ‘friends of the party’.

The indications from some party insiders still pointed in favour of Corbin retaining the leadership. However, the PNC, which has been languishing for the past 17 years in opposition politics, may well have further undermined its chances of replacing the PPP in government at the coming 2011 general election by its deepening internal conflicts over electoral malpractices.

If, in Trinidad and Tobago, the writing for replacement of Panday seems quite clear, in Guyana, the situation for the PNCR is that whoever is officially announced at the 16th congress as leader would know that he faces an enormous task to rebuild confidence among the party's rank and file to replace the current PPP administration at new general election due in August 2011.

JUSTICE IS NOT A CLOISTERED VIRTUE
Mr. Juman-Yasin has himself publicly criticised the judiciary and judicial officials in the recent past. Is it because the PPP is the critic that Mr. Juman-Yasin sees a problem – perhaps because it is the governing party and its criticism might be misconstrued?

Or is there some other reason for Mr. Juman-Yasin to seemingly suggest “ulterior motives” on the part of the PPP? The reason cannot be that the PPP was wrong. The argument clearly posits so far, in my humble view, what is actually the practice as against what the legal authorities say.
By Ralph Ramkarran
ROBUST public scrutiny of the administration and dispensation of justice is vitally necessary to preserve the rule of law and the independence and integrity of the magistracy and judiciary.

A public debate is raging in the press at the time of writing this article about the right of a Magistrate to reject a confession statement on the ground that it was obtained by coercion.

It is not a debate that I am qualified to join publicly as I can claim no significant expertise in criminal law.

I am concerned, however, about a sentiment that crept into the opening bout of the debate.

Mr. Juman-Yasin not only criticised the legal principle advocated by the PPP but he suggested that the criticism was disingenuous and malicious.

This is what he said: the ‘whole thrust of the statement was to criticise the decision…and implied ulterior motives.”

I am sure that he could not be complaining about the right of the PPP or any group or person to criticise the magistracy or judiciary.

Mr. Juman-Yasin has himself publicly criticised the judiciary and judicial officials in the recent past.

Is it because the PPP is the critic that Mr. Juman-Yasin sees a problem – perhaps because it is the governing party and its criticism might be misconstrued?

Or is there some other reason for Mr. Juman-Yasin to seemingly suggest “ulterior motives” on the part of the PPP? The reason cannot be that the PPP was wrong. The argument clearly posits so far, in my humble view, what is actually the practice as against what the legal authorities say.

At best the issue is still at large. Why cannot the PPP take a position based on the legal advice that it receives?

Mr. Anil Nandalall responded by rejecting the allegation that the PPP’s statement could be construed as imputing improper motives and, citing legal authority for the proposition that the magistrate had no power to reject the confession statement, disputed Mr. Juman-Yasin’s view of the law on the issue.

Messrs. Bernard DeSantos, S.C., and Nigel Hughes joined the debate in support of Mr. Juman-Yasin but, not citing any legal authorities, the matter is still unresolved.

With such eminent lawyers being in disagreement, only a future court decision will probably finally resolve the matter.

Mr. Juman-Yasin would be familiar with this famous statement below made in 1936 by Lord Atkin, one of the greatest intellects in English jurisprudence during the last century whose creative ability extended the boundaries of the common law in some of the most eloquent, compelling and memorable language in legal literature: “Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments by ordinary men.”

In 1968, Mr. Quintin Hogg, QC, then a politician and a Conservative MP, later Lord Hailsham, a Lord Chancellor, criticised the ‘unrealistic, contradictory’ and ‘erroneous’ decisions of the courts which, he said, should apologise for the trouble to which it had put the police by its decisions in interpreting certain legislation.

Lord Denning, another English jurist of great distinction during the last century said: “It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make a fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest.”

There is no record of any court daring to cite Professor Glanville Williams, a celebrated legal scholar, who made the following strong statement in criticising the decision in Anderson v Ryan: “The tale I have to tell is unflattering of the higher judiciary. It is an account of how the judges invented a rule based upon conceptual misunderstanding; of their determination to use the English language so strangely that they spoke what by normal criteria would be termed untruths; of their invincible ignorance of the mess they had made of the law; and of their immobility on the subject, carried to the extent of subverting an Act of Parliament designed to put them straight.”

The PPP’s description of the Magistrate’s decision as “extraordinary” pales into insignificance when compared to Professor Glanville’s statement.

Magistrates and judges are accustomed to the expression of disagreement with their views by lawyers appearing before them (with) only the most deferential and respectful posture and language.

That is as it should be. But in the real world, of politics and otherwise, people do not speak like lawyers and neither should they.

And, late though it may be, lawyers, magistrates and judges should accustom themselves to the language of the real world.

About 25 years ago, we witnessed the deleterious consequences of unfettered judicial authoritarianism and intolerance.

A young, courageous lawyer, who was defence counsel to some young men who were members of the PPP and who were charged with politically related offences, quite properly submitted to a judge that he ought to recuse himself on the ground of the appearance of bias because he was in the past a candidate for the PNC in general elections.

In one of the great injustices of that era which reinforced the prevailing suppression of freedom of expression, the lawyer was cited for contempt.
Only an impassioned plea by his Counsel saved him from a prison sentence.

The message was clear – the judiciary as an instrument of oppression must remain unchallenged.

It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that such a situation does not return to our judiciary or to Guyana.

The Observer
Basque Terrorism: As Good As It Gets
IT’S STILL a nest of terrorists around here, but nobody worries about it much. These days, when you hear a helicopter at night, it’s only the medevac chopper bringing some urgent case down to the main hospital at Bayonne, on the coast.

In the bad old days, the helicopter you heard would have been using infrared detectors to spot Basque terrorists heading across the mountains at night into Spain.

This south-western corner of France is just as Basque as the much larger Basque-speaking provinces of Spain, but ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna – Basque Land and Liberty) always used France as a safe rear area, and did its actual killing across the frontier.

The terrorists are still around, and they enjoy a certain amount of local support. Last Saturday was the summer festival in our local town, Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port (or Donibane Garazi, in Basque), and everybody for miles around was drinking and dancing in the square below the citadel, waiting for it to get dark enough for the fireworks to begin. Suddenly, banners were unfurled on the city walls: “Kidnapped? Tortured? Murdered? Where is Jon?”

So you ask, and it turns out that everybody knows who Jon is. He’s a local man, universally believed to be an ETA member, who got on a train to Toulouse but never arrived. Everybody also believes that he was carrying a large sum of money for ETA, which leads nasty cynics like myself to contemplate several alternative possible reasons for his disappearance, but local opinion is convinced that it was the State that got him.

Yet local opinion is not really very upset about it. Most people don’t care much whether the French police seized or killed Jon, or if somebody else robbed and killed him, or even if he just decided to disappear and live on the proceeds. It’s all part of the game that some play on the fringes of society, and they’re welcome to play it, as long as they don’t frighten the horses.

Across the border in Spain, where the killing happens, people take ETA much more seriously, and there is less sympathy for the killers among Spanish Basques than among French Basques. But there is also irreducible hard-core of support for the extreme nationalist option. Spain does not let political parties that openly support terrorism run in national elections, but when a radical Basque party was allowed to run in the June elections for the European parliament, it got 140,000 votes.

That’s only five per cent of the population in those provinces. The terrorist struggle for Basque independence has so few supporters because the Basque provinces of Spain already have almost complete control over their own affairs. But that tiny minority of hard-liners is enough to sustain the armed struggle forever.

The ‘struggle’ has killed 825 people over the past forty years, including three police killed by ETA bombs, and sixty people injured by a truck bomb in Burgos this summer. There have been three cease-fires over the years, the last in 2006, but they never lead to a final deal, because there is a small but steady supply of young people who cannot resist the lure of extremism. It gives meaning to their little lives.

But even on the Spanish side of the frontier, where there are deaths from terrorism every year, few people see it as a dominant factor in their lives. It’s just background noise, like the daily toll from traffic accidents.

The French police now cooperate closely with their Spanish counterparts in trying to catch the ETA militants who shelter in the French Basque provinces, but even when they didn’t, nobody in Spain suggested invading France to stamp out the terrorist sanctuaries. That would be grotesquely disproportionate, like invading Afghanistan to protect Americans from Arab terrorists.

The ETA story, like that of the IRA in Northern Ireland, teaches us three things. The first is that you don’t need a territorial ‘base’ to carry out terrorist attacks; an isolated farmhouse or an anonymous city apartment will do. The second is that you should treat terrorism like any other crime: Use the police to track the perpetrators down, and don’t inflate the whole problem enormously by getting the army involved.

The third is that you must not expect a decisive victory. When we talk about a ‘war on crime’, we do not expect all the criminals to come out one day with their hands up, after which there will be no more crime. Success is defined in terms of keeping the crime RATE down. Success in anti-terrorist operations has to be seen in similar terms, and anybody who promises you more is lying.

Eight years of the ‘war on terror’ have created a huge military, corporate and bureaucratic lobby in the United States, whose livelihood depends on a highly militarised approach to terrorism, so it will be a long time before a saner strategy prevails in Washington. Britain’s learning curve in Northern Ireland was thirty years long, and Russia has learned nothing yet in Chechnya. But people generally do the right thing in the end -- after they have exhausted all the alternatives.

(Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist)

PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST
One fact that must be recognised is that the PPP from the time of its formation in 1953 never lost a democratic election in Guyana and has consistently won a plurality if not an absolute majority of the votes. These victories are not the result of ethnic voting as is so often made out to be by detractors and opposition elements. Rather, it is the result of a proven record of gains made by the Party for the people of Guyana and its embrace of universalistic values which transcended ethnic and cultural considerations.
By Hydar Ally
ONE distinguishing characteristic of this current PPP/C administration, quite apart from its democratic credentials, is the fact that it has over the decades consistently in its programmes and policies put people at the centre of its development agenda.

This is precisely so because of the nature of the Party which evolved out of a history of struggle for and on behalf of the people of Guyana, in particular the working people

For those who are unfamiliar with the history of the Party and in particular for those who pretended not to remember the heroic and epic battles fought for and won on behalf of the people, it is prudent to refresh the minds of Guyanese on some historic facts which are downplayed by the media, in particular the opposition media.

It was the PPP that fought for and won the right to vote and in so doing be given a voice in the determination of the policies and programmes of the country.

As Dr. Jagan mentioned, laws were made prior to 1947 not in the legislature, but in the exclusive Georgetown Club.

It was only after the entry of Dr. Jagan to the Legislative Assembly in the elections of 1947 that the rules of political engagement changed somewhat.

For the first time the working people of Guyana had a genuine voice in the Legislature. Dr. Jagan, as it were, upset the apple cart and provided a new dimension in the politics of the country, one of exposure and agitation for the enhancement of the quality of life of the underprivileged.

The struggle was taken to a higher level with the formation of the Political Affairs Committee in 1946 and four years later in the formation of the People’s Progressive Party which from the inception took a class position in the way it treated with issues affecting the people of Guyana.

The PPP was and continue to be first and foremost a workers party putting the interest of the people on the front burner. Because of its working class orientation, the Party faced opposition from a number of vested interests which included the rich and powerful sugar lords who in collaboration with the colonial office schemed to overthrow the PPP from office as was the case in 1953 when the constitution was suspended and an interim administration which comprised in the main of defeated candidates in the elections of 1953.

The PPP again won elections in 1957 despite a split in the PPP engineered by the colonial office in collaboration with local reactionaries which included Forbes Burnham who at the time was Chairman of the Party.

Dr. Jagan was elected as Party Leader and Forbes Burnham Party Chairman when the Party was formed on January 1, 1950.

Burnham however, encouraged by vested interests, sought unsuccessfully to take over the leadership of the Party. Having failed in his bid to so do, he eventually formed his own party in 1955.

Interestingly, Burnham named his breakaway faction PPP and retained the name of Thunder as his official theoretical organ until after the elections of 1957 when he changed the name of his party to the People’s National Congress after his party suffered a humiliating defeat in the 1957 elections. The PPP went on to win successive election victories in the elections of 1961 and 1964 but was cheated and manipulated out of office in the 1964 elections due to what former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson described as a fiddled constitutional arrangement.

One fact that must be recognised is that the PPP from the time of its formation in 1953 never lost a democratic election in Guyana and has consistently won a plurality if not an absolute majority of the votes.

These victories are not the result of ethnic voting as is so often made out to be by detractors and opposition elements.

Rather, it is the result of a proven record of gains made by the Party for the people of Guyana and its embrace of universalistic values which transcended ethnic and cultural considerations.

The PPP has demonstrated - as the results of the last elections showed - that it is the only truly national party in the country drawing on the support of people right across the ethnic and cultural spectrum of the country.

There are those who are making all kinds of wild and unsubstantiated allegations against the Party and the PPP/C administration.

They are accusing the current administration of corruption, incompetence and discrimination. They speak of “elected “dictatorships, which in itself is a contradiction of terms.

A government is either democratic as in the case of the PPP/C which has consistently won office in certified free and fair elections or dictatorial and undemocratic as in the case of the former PNC regime which never won a free and fair elections.

Interestingly, there are allegations of attempts to even rig their own internal party elections at the upcoming party Congress.

The PPP has a long and proud history of struggle for the people of Guyana. The gains and achievements are substantial and could be seen in every facet of life. It would take much more than allegations and mud-slinging on the part of opposition elements to change this fact.

ARE TROTMAN AND RAMJATTAN IN PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT?
- Ramjattan client claims those posturing as voices of conscience are themselves without conscience, cites his contention is based on case of perjury and fraud
A PROMISSORY note, followed by a judgement and a court order precipitated a series of events that eventuated in Attorney-at-Law, Sheila Chapman, being taken before the Legal Practitioners Committee on charges of perjury and fraud.

Complicit in this matter is Chapman associate, Attorney-at-Law Raphael Trotman, by way of an affidavit drawn on 20th November 1996 by himself, Sheila Chapman, and Avril Trotman.

Legal documents attest to Drupatie Persaud having obtained a Guyana High Court Judgement by Justice Lennox Perry against the estate of the late Baldeo Ramgolam, based on a promissory note dated 28th March 1983 for the sum of two hundred and ninety-four thousand, eight hundred and seventy-five (United States) dollars.

Speedy probate of the assets was promised by counsel for the Ramgolam estate executrix Chandra Ramgolam, Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman, but this did not fructify in a timely manner.

Persaud’s story is reflective of the Government’s contention that those with very dirty linen, including Raphael Trotman’s culpability for PNC’s record of destruction to this nation, are attempting to wash off their dirt onto the various functionaries of the Government in a bid to hoodwink the gullible public into believing that they are honourable persons who have the welfare of the public at heart, but who are instead predatory beasts that would destroy the peace of this land (which they have) in efforts to attain power through the back door.

In the interim the relatives of Baldeo Ramgolam were dissipating and further devaluing, through vandalism, the assets of the estate which, through devaluation of the Guyana dollar could only provide part-payment of the debt.

Because the judgement awardee Drupatie Persaud resided in Canada, upon her request Justice Kenneth Barnwell on 21st July 1986 appointed Prakash Persaud receiver of the Ramgolam estate in partial settlement of the indebtedness to Drupatie Persaud, with the consent in court of both executrix of the Ramgolam estate, Chandra Ramgolam, and her Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman.

Both Chandra Ramgolam and her Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman nominated the brother of the executrix, Deeneshwar Ramgolam, to hand over the assets of the Ramgolam estates to Prakash Persaud, and on 31st July 1986 in the High Court before Justice Kenneth Barnwell, Deeneshwar Ramgolam submitted hand-over statements to Prakash Persaud.

Upon instructions from Justice Barnwell for speedy probate Chandra Ramgolam and her attorney Sheila Chapman stated by way of affidavit of 5th June 1986 that they expected to obtain probate within two months, but this was not honoured and probate was not obtained until August 1992 - six years later, and disregarding legal requirements Prakash Persaud was not informed when probate was granted.

In the application for probate via a supplementary affidavit by Chandra Ramgolam drawn by Sheila Chapman she categorically avers in Paragraph 2 “that on the 21st day of July 1986 Mr. Prakash Persaud was named receiver by Mr. Justice Barnwell and he has been in possession of all the assets since that date.”

This document indicates the knowledge of both Chandra Ramgolam and Sheila Chapman that all the assets of the deceased were now legally in the possession of Prakash Persaud the agent of the Plaintiff, who was merely awaiting probate of the estates.

However, in the affidavit for probate, sworn by Chandra Ramgolam and drawn by Sheila Chapman, all the immovable properties were declared by their transport numbers except for 768 acres of lands with sawmill and related equipment at Plantation Clemwood, Demerara River. These, being a part of the Ramgolam estates, were also included in the judgement award and legally belonged to the Plaintiff Drupati Persaud.

But an illegal Agreement of Sale on 6th October 1993, witnessed by Sheila Chapman and one Lorna Bayley, purported to give by the vendor Chandra Ramgolam to the Purchaser Mahendra Jettoo “immediate possession” of the Clemwood properties.

Sheila Chapman proved herself in complicity with the questionable sale when, on the same day she wrote, representing Chandra Ramlagan as attorney, to caretaker Jerry Dhanpaul, advising him of the sale and terminating permission for his residing on the premises, in full and confident knowledge that these properties were the legal entitlement, under judgement and court order, of Drupatie Persaud, with Prakash Persaud as legally-appointed receiver.

After signing the illegal Agreement of Sale Sheila Chapman on 30th April 1996 – three years later, signed as Attorney-at-Law for Chandra Ramgolam and instructed the Registrar of Deeds of Guyana to advertise the transport of the 768 acres of land at Plantation Clemwood. The transport number was not mentioned, nor advertised, which is a legal prerequisite.

This was in response to challenges by Mr. Prakash Persaud on the legality of the sale, with those culpable attempting to authenticate the sale with an affidavit drawn on 20th November 1996 by Attorneys-at-Law Sheila Chapman, Avril Trotman, and Raphael C.C. Trotman, praying for an order from the High Court of Judicature for Chandra Ramgolam to sell the Clemwood properties, which had already been sold to him three years back, on 6th October 1993, when “immediate possession” had been given to the Vendor, who still retained possession of the properties up to that point.

Prakash Persaud then wrote to Madame Chief Justice Desiree Bernard, seeking her intervention. She responded favourably and the applicants then abandoned that course.

In the interim Persaud attempted assiduously to obtain the transport for the Clemwood lands but they had apparently been already removed.

Through a highly-irregular Consent Order No. 958, in which a transport number was not indicated, dated 27th October 1998, Chandra Ramgolam and Sheila Chapman conspired to pass a transport for the Clemwood properties – No. 1956/98 to Mahendra Jettoo, which obviously involved the complicity of a member of the Deeds Registry.

Chief Justice Carl Singh, upon complaints from Persaud, enquired on the matter of Sheila Chapman, to which she informed him that Prakash Persaud was only entitled to receive the movable assets from the estate of the late Baldeo Ramgolam, knowing this to be a false claim.

Six months after Jettoo obtained the questionable transport, the Clemwood properties were advertised for sale in the Official Gazette. The sale was challenged by Persaud and Justices Carl Singh and Roy, sitting in the Full Court, found that all the assets, including immovable properties, which included the Clemwood lands, were indeed in receivership, with Persaud being the receiver.

By way of Order No. 95 of 2002 they restrained Jettoo from effecting any conveyance of the property to anyone or any entity.

On 14th February 1999 Ramgolam executrix, Chandra Ramgolam, voluntarily visited Persaud at his home and expressed remorse for her actions, claiming to have been “misled and misguided” by her attorney.

She promised to hand over to Persaud the unspent amount that had been received from Sheila Chapman after the irregular sale of the Clemwood properties to Jettoo.

For the inconvenience of loss of time measuring years, the loss of properties and income, and the stress related to the fraudulent acts perpetrated against him and his mother-in-law, which he feels contributed in a great measure to his ill-health, Prakash Persaud, acting upon advisement of then Attorney-General Doodnauth Singh, took Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman before the Legal Practitioners Committee upon charges of fraud and perjury.

He appointed Khemraj Ramjattan to represent him in the matter and paid him in advance. However, Ramjattan did not appear to represent him but instead severely admonished him in strong language, ending his tirade with “I have to consider fraternity.”

Persaud also charged that, in the midst of the legal engagements on the matter, Ramjattan had told him warningly that Trotman had questioned him why he was fighting such a case when the court had already ruled.

The Petitioner said that he was treated before the Legal Practitioners Committee as if he was the one on trial and that, when he had requested a copy of the case file, to which he was entitled, he discovered several pertinent documents missing.

A copy of the “fly Leaf” of the proceedings of the case was in the file and Persaud said he was appalled by the comments that there was “no lawyer and client relationship.”

But Cap. 4: 01 – 24 states that an application can be made by “a client or other person aggrieved…”.

Persaud claimed that the actions of this attorney, backed by her associates, caused him much loss, as the Ramgolam estate was insolvent and could not have covered the full indebtedness of the deceased.

He said the only part of the estate that had some degree of value was the Clemwood lands, the full value of which he was robbed; yet until today he could get no redress – either through the Legal Practitioners Committee or through the justice system, and all the attorneys complicit in this situation, including his own attorney, Khemraj Ramjattan, whose non-representation has enabled the statute of limitations to be exhausted, have not been sanctioned in any way.

Like many Guyanese he is questioning the viability of the justice system in Guyana.

However, Ramgolam’s widow Parbatie, who had been witness to the promissory note handwritten by her husband, and who was aware that her husband’s insolvent estate could not adequately compensate for his indebtedness, had agreed wholeheartedly to the transferral of the Ramgolam estates to the Plaintiff, Drupattie Persaud, and had given full responsibility for that undertaking to Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman and their relative Chandra Ramgolam before she departed Guyana; and she is appalled that such despicable acts were committed by persons whom she entrusted to honour her late husband’s memory by dispensing with his indebtedness to the extent of the ability of his possessions to do so.

She has consequently appointed another executor of the estate to take legal action against those who committed those fraudulent acts.

Persaud’s story is reflective of the Government’s contention that those with very dirty linen, including Raphael Trotman’s culpability for PNC’s record of destruction to this nation, are attempting to wash off their dirt onto the various functionaries of the Government in a bid to hoodwink the gullible public into believing that they are honourable persons who have the welfare of the public at heart, but who are instead predatory beasts that would destroy the peace of this land (which they have) in efforts to attain power through the back door.

And what do they plan to do with that power? The case above effectively answers that question.

Perspectives
GOPIO 20th Anniversary Celebration
“…Since its inception 20 years ago, GOPIO has made remarkable progress as the global organisation representing the interests of over 25 million persons of Indian origin living outside of India. As the number of persons of Indian origin living in other countries continues to increase, GOPIO’s role becomes more important and timely as it continues to reach out to persons of Indian origin living in more countries…”
By Prem Misir
The Crowne Plaza Hotel in New York provided the centerpiece for the Global Organisation of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO) 20th Anniversary Celebration, from Thursday, August 20 through Sunday, August 23, 2009; the GOPIO’s theme was “People of Indian Origin: Strengthening Global Connections.”

GOPIO was born in 1989 at the first Convention of People of Indian Origin (PIO) where it endorsed 23 Resolutions, including the PIO Card and Dual Citizenship for Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) and PIOs from the Government of India.

GOPIO filed human rights violations petition to the United Nations for the PIOs in Fiji in 1990 and for those in Sri Lanka in 1992, among a host of other significant accomplishments lobbying to promote the NRI/PIO interests.

Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh observed in his message to this Convention that “…GOPIO has emerged as a leading organisation providing a unique platform for the vast Indian overseas community for promoting their interests and realizing their aspirations. It has contributed significantly in the process of engagement between the Government of India and the Indian Diaspora. The bonds between the motherland and the people of Indian origin across the globe are valuable and precious...”

Our own President Bharrat Jagdeo in his message observed that “…Since its inception 20 years ago, GOPIO has made remarkable progress as the global organisation representing the interests of over 25 million persons of Indian origin living outside of India. As the number of persons of Indian origin living in other countries continues to increase, GOPIO’s role becomes more important and timely as it continues to reach out to persons of Indian origin living in more countries…”

Prime Minister of Mauritius Dr. Navinchandra Ramgoolam observed: “…Whatever the country they have settled in, people of Indian origin have made it a point to preserve and promote their rich cultural heritage. I am glad to note that the GOPIO is allowing Indian culture a significant space within its program activities. Indeed, no development can be considered complete without the cultural dimension…”

Some of the Sessions covered themes as: India & the Global Economy; Indian Diaspora – Prospects and Challenges in the Emerging Global Economy; Diaspora in India’s Development; India’s Diaspora in Social development – What Could We Do?; Energizing the Global Indian Diaspora; Living/Pioneers – Global Perspective on Indian Elders; The Global Indian Diaspora: Then and Now; The Next Generation; The Global Indian Diaspora: Inter-Ethnic Relations; The Global Indian Diaspora: The Family unit Including Women and Inter-Generational Issues.

Some of the participants included the following: Lord Diljit Rana, House of Lords, Great Britain; Hon. Basdeo Panday, Opposition Leader, T&T; Hon. Logie Naidoo, Deputy Mayor, South Africa; Dr. Arvind Panagariya, Professor of economics and Jagdish Bhagwati Professor of Indian Political Economy, Columbia University; B.C. Gupta, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, India; Aruneshwar Gupta, Former Advocate General of Rajasthan; Dr. Raj Warrier, Vice Chancellor, Manipal University, India; Professor Chandrashakhar Bhat, Former Professor, University of Hyderabad; Professor Parmatma Saran, City University of New York; Professor Mohan Gautam, Leiden University, Netherlands, Yesu Persaud, Caribbean Council of Europe; among many ‘distinguished’ others.

There is growing need to have a working relationship of Overseas Indians with India, amid a fiercely brutal economic globalization process; and given, too, that India is fast emerging as a global economic super power.

As Nehru said, each Indian takes a piece of India to the new abode. However, any chance of limited political and economic networking among Overseas Indians, notwithstanding their many notable accomplishments, guarantees a reduced prevalence of their culture in the major institutions of multiracial societies; the reduced prevalence drives a wedge between India and Overseas Indians.

And GOPIO, among its several mandates, ensures that this limited prevalence has no sustainability.