THE Kaieteur News columnist Frederick Kissoon has seen a “jumbie” in the recently passed legislation which gives the DPP powers to appeal the acquittal of a person in a criminal trial in the High Court. The “jumbie” he sees is haunting Kissoon and while seemingly running out of matters to grope about and/or on which to attack and criticise the government, he cites this recently passed law as a deepening of semi-fascism in Guyana. Then he seemingly changes his mind about this label and exclaims, “this may be more than semi-fascism but fascism itself”. (KN 23/03/10).
In his column on 23/03/10, two days since he wrote on the legislation under the theme “Legacies of power, drunkenness, sexual insanity and unprecedented corruption” he declares that “the manifestations of a creeping fascism has (sic) now crept up and has (sic) become nationally visible. What a creep! Oops! By use of the word creep, I am not referring to Kissoon but to his noted creeping fascism which he claims crept and in two days moved from semi-fascism to a nationally visible fascism. What a creep indeed!!
Kissoon’s examination of the recently passed law has been treated with the jaundiced, vicious, biased and pernicious style of commentary to which he has subjected government action and policy and senior government functionaries. His conclusion on the Bill is that it is “essentially an act of State terror”.
Employing Kissoon’s reasoning and limited focus on this law and his conclusion flowing there from, it would logically (Kissoon would love the use of this word) follow that all countries with similar legislative enactments, are semi-fascist, creeping fascist or fascist and that the introduction of similar legislation in such countries constituted “an act of State terror”.
It is obvious that Kissoon has not done his research …again! (I gather that it has been alleged that the failure to do research and generate academic publications, as all dedicated university professors do, is a constant criticism that has been levelled at Kissoon at the University of Guyana). Had Kissoon researched this particular type of legislation he would have found that:
* Canada allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal.
* In Australia, more particularly, in New South Wales, legislation provides for appeal against acquittal, in cases where someone is acquitted by a judge or where a judge directs a jury to acquit.
* In the Netherlands, the State can appeal against a not guilty verdict.
* Research by Kissoon would have revealed that in Europe Article 4 of the Seventh Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights provides:

“No one shall be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same court for an offence for which he has already been acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State”.

Notwithstanding the above provision, certain courts in Europe allow appeals on acquittal on the reasoning that the appeal is a continuation of the same matter and that the filing of an appeal means that there has not been a final acquittal.

* Certain states in India, allow for appeals to a superior court by the State/Prosecution against acquittals by a lower court. In the State of Bihar, the Railway Minister Laloo Prasad and his wife were recently prosecuted for possessing more assets than their income permitted. They were both acquitted of the charge. The government appealed the acquittal and in the face of objection to the filing of the appeal, the High Court of Bihar declared the State government perfectly entitled to appeal against the acquittal of the Railway Minister.

So Kissoon, do you call the countries I have identified, semi-fascist or fascist? I look forward to your response and finally, I just thought that I should say to you that in the context of your observations on the professional capabilities of the DPP, you might have made yourself liable to the DPP in the libel laws of Guyana.