I REFER to a letter written by Mr. Christopher Ram and published in Stabroek News on the 3rd of August, 2011, under the caption “Has Mr. Nandlall offered cautionary advice to his client?” This letter appears to be a response to a letter of mine published in Stabroek News on the 1st August, 2011, in which I informed Mr. Frederick Kissoon that should he persists in publishing certain matters in the press regarding a pending case in the High Court, he may be liable for Contempt of Court.

I wrote as attorney-at-law for the Plaintiff in that case in which Mr. Kissoon, the Editor and the Publishers of the Kaieteur News are the Defendants.

This is the second occasion that Mr. Ram has responded to letters written by me and published in the press which touch and concern matters of law. The first is a piece I did on the amendment to Title to Land (Prescription and Limitation) Act, earlier this year. In both of these responses, I have observed that Mr. Ram has allowed an impertinent pen to wander way beyond the issue at hand and on each occasion, Mr. Ram’s letters degenerated inexplicably into attacks on President Jagdeo.

Hopefully, with the passage of time, Mr. Ram may recognize that relevance is the compass by which legal debates are guided.

In the letter under review, without uttering a single word on the propriety or lack thereof of his client’s publication, Mr. Ram accuses President Jagdeo of committing the same wrong, of which I am accusing Mr. Kissoon.

Assuming but not admitting that President Jagdeo has committed such wrongs, does this provide the basis for Mr. Ram’s client to do likewise? The philosophical flaw in this type of legal reasoning was made universally popular by Mahatma Gandhi nearly three quarters of a century ago and I see no reason to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that I have already drawn Mr. Kissoon’s attention to the issue at hand, as I am compelled to do, and, of a consequence which may result if he persists with that line of publication.

Whether he pays me any mind or not, is a matter completely for him and his legal advisors. Fortunately for him, Mr. Ram is not the only one. If Mr. Ram feels so aggrieved by the perceived wrongs committed by my client, he should, as I did, begin to take steps to curb these alleged excesses. 

Mr. Ram enquires whether I proffered certain advice to my client. Unfortunately, I cannot disclose to Mr. Ram, or anyone else, the advice which I tender to my client. This is privileged information. This concept has, apparently, also eluded Mr. Ram.

Mr. Ram next contends that neither he, nor Mr. Ramjattan, requested from the Chief Justice an early date for the trial of the action. Well, I have already stated my position on this issue which I confirmed with the Chief Justice before I published my letter.

I see no need to repeat the same here. But more importantly, that is water under the bridge. The matter is now fixed for trial. Most litigants and lawyers alike, welcome an early trial, especially when adverse rulings made against them or their interests, are ordered to continue in force until the trial of the action.

Such a ruling has been made against Mr. Ram’s clients. So, Mr. Ram lets proceed to trial in the Courts of law where you can truly demonstrate your legal expertise. The letters column of the newspapers is not the proper forum.