I NOTE with great amusement the speed with which the Guyana Bar Association was activated into action in condemning the Guyana Police Force in the Colwyn Harding affair.
The Bar Association must know, or at least is presumed to know, about concepts such as due process, presumption of innocence, the right to be heard, and their absolute significance to the justice system, as well as to the basic civilized notion of fairness.
However, the Bar Association obviously disregarded and ignored all these concepts in their haste to rally around Nigel Hughes, who appears to be the main architect behind this whole saga. Indeed, from all indications, it appears they are going to be personally humiliated, along with Hughes and the AFC, since, the information which is emanating from the police investigation and the medical probe is debunking the story which they are peddling.
As lawyers, a few factors should have, at a minimum, struck them as odd. They include:
i. The sheer improbability of a baton being inserted in someone’s anus without his needing medical treatment for nearly two months;

ii. the fact that the victim of such a violent assault was able to walk, attend court and have bowel movement for two months, without any apparent problems;

iii. the victim of such a brutal act not disclosing it to anyone, for two months, even his close relatives, or the Magistrate before whom he appeared just two days thereafter;

iv. that the disclosures came after two months when his knight in shining armour, Nigel Hughes, rode up on the scene;

v. that no one, including police officers, who may have been on the scene, prisoners who may have been in the lock-ups, uttered a single word about this atrocity before the disclosure by Hughes;

vi. when doctors were engaged, the absence of any medical opinion, instantaneously or even belatedly, which supports the infliction of such an unusual act of cruelty.
These crystal-clear signals must titillate suspicion in the mind of a reasonable person, more so, a person trained in law. The Bar Association ignored them all. They rushed to judgment against the police after hearing only one side and in the absence of any corroborating evidence. The police’s right to be heard was ignored.
Compare their reaction when Nigel Hughes was accused of tampering with the jury in the Lusignan Massacre murder case. Here, thirteen people died, including five children. All slaughtered in their sleep, worse than animals. Not a word of concern or condemnation emanated from this Association. In fact, when they were called upon to comment by Mr. Anil Nandlall, the Attorney General, their President, in a letter to the Press, attacked and condemned him.
Recall, when allegations were made against the Police that they had burnt the genitals of a teenaged boy, the Bar Association condemned it with all its might. Indeed they were right to do so. In that case, there was ample evidence of the excessive actions. The Police Officers were charged. However, when the State paid the compensation which was ordered by a Judge to the teenager for the injuries he suffered, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan pocketed over one-third (1/3) of it as legal fees. The Court of Appeal in Guyana, some years ago, ruled that contingency arrangements between lawyer and client are unlawful. It is obvious the Mr. Ramjattan had such an arrangement. Again, not a word from the Bar Association.
Only a few weeks ago, a policeman,in the course of his duties, was shot and killed by a prisoner. Not a word from the Bar Association. Is this not a human life? At least, Harding is alive. I can go on to list more examples. I do not think it is necessary. I believe the point is made.
To the “learned” members of this “honourable” profession, I say your slip is showing in a most vulgar manner; your silence will do you a greater good. History teaches us that there are two professions which are regarded as the oldest. One is the legal profession. I will leave you to guess the other. This Bar Association seems to be a member of both.

Reaz Holladar