– Pro-Chancellor stresses importance of ensuring ‘due process’
PRO-Chancellor of the University of Guyana (UG) Dr Prem Misir has indicated that any university staff that might be accused of grave misconduct, must be given “appropriate due process as well as a good and fair hearing”.

Speaking to the media yesterday at the Office of the Pro-Chancellor, Pere Street, Kitty, Georgetown, Dr Misir explained the procedure in light of a Faculty of Technology Lecturer, Mr. Evan Radhay Persaud who ‘came under fire’ recently for alleged inappropriate behaviour including victimising and threatening students.

Alluding to the situation with Persaud, Dr Misir said “in some ways it is premature”, since there is a due process currently at work, legally, with the matter at the Committee stage at the University.

“That Committee does not determine whether the person loses his job or not. It doesn’t really. That thing has to go through some other stages, and I think our main concern as Members of the Council, we are very concern that we give, whether it is Mr. Persaud or whoever is in the hot seat, a fair hearing and there should be appropriate due process at work,” he explained.

“There is a process that is at work…and we have to ensure that it is at work,” Dr Misir said, pointing out that Statute 25 of the UG Statutes is particularly relevant to this situation.

“Statute 25 allows an investigation of complaints that might be made by a student, or anybody against a faculty member, and once that complaint is made, and it is assessed to be a complaint that has some degree of substance if you like, and in terms of repercussions for the whole university community, I think it is something that needs to be examined,” he stated.

According to Statute 25: ‘If it appears to the Council that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Principal and Vice Chancellor, the Vice-Principal and Deputy Vice-Chancellor, or any other member of the UA (University Administration) staff may be guilty of grave misconduct, or is unable to perform the functions of his office as might warrant the termination of his employment, the Council shall:

(a) give him notice, in writing, of the reason for the action contemplated;

(b) if he or the Council so request within the period of fourteen days beginning with the date of the notice, make arrangements:

(i) for a Special Select Committee, comprising of two members of the Academic Board (not being members of the Council appointed by the Academic Board), and three other persons appointed by the Council none of whom shall be members of the Council, to investigate the charges;

(ii) for the person to whom the investigation relates to, be afforded the opportunity of being heard on his own behalf and to be allowed legal representation at the hearing by the Committee with respect to the charges;

And if the Council, after considering the report of the Special Committee, is satisfied that the person to whom the investigation relates ought to be removed from the office may terminate his appointment.

The Pro-Chancellor noted that an investigation committee did its work and came up with a report which was presented to the University Council.

“But what has happened is that some people have seen the report as ‘like the end of this guy’, or any person for that matter. But it is not; it is just the beginning of the whole due process,” Dr Misir explained.

“We are very concerned about fairness here regardless of who it is,” he stressed.

“There was a report which was presented at the last Council meeting but after that, we have to think about the next stages,” he stated.

He explained that, for instance, the person in question is given notice in terms of what the Committee of Investigation reported and will be given a letter to indicate what the Committee determined and, based on that letter and his/her own assessment, it will be useful for the person to assess whether he wants to appeal the situation or not.

“If there is going to be a situation where the person wants to appeal then there is a whole set of due process at work,” he reminded.

The Pro-Chancellor also noted that the University Council will have to set up the Special Committee but that has not happened as yet in this case.

“We are not even there yet so nobody has been fired or anything like that,” Misir told the media.

“It is not a case where somebody is going to lose his or her job, we don’t know how all of this is going to work out,” he made clear again.

“We are very concern that due process works itself out here, and the person in question or any person for that matter in a situation of this nature, must be given a fair hearing,” he told reporters.

“Until the Special Committee has a final hearing on all of this, it can even throw out whatever you may have in your possession already, but I think my concern as I look at it more and more carefully, is that whoever is involved in a situation like this must be given appropriate due process as well as a good fair hearing,” he went on.

“The Committee’s report has already been given to the Council and what will happen now, based on how the person in question assesses the situation, that person has 14 days in which to respond,” he said.

“It is very, very important that we understand the procedures involved here and don’t jump to ‘premature conclusions’,” the Pro-Chancellor emphasised.

“There is a situation that we are addressing and we are going through the procedures but nobody is guilty until everything has been sorted out,” he concluded.