OUR attention was drawn to a letter written by Mike Persaud and published on pages 4 and 5 of Kaieteur News, dated Wednesday December 10, 2014, under the bold caption, ‘Anil Nandlall and his role in fraudulent powers of attorney’. We regret that (the Kaieteur News) has rushed to publish this defamatory letter without, at least, affording us an opportunity to respond. Nevertheless, we do so now with the hope that our response will be given equal prominence.

Firstly, we wish to make it clear that our attorneys at law do not engage in the preparation of Powers of Attorney. Powers of Attorney are prepared by our secretarial and clerical staff.
In the instant case, our record reflects that a Power of Attorney was prepared for Mr. Rampersaud of 57 Waterloo Street, Identification number 068610. The Power of Attorney was prepared upon the instructions of Mr. Rampersaud who appeared personally and gave those said instructions. It those instructions he appointed Narine Persaud of Dornhagg, Leguan to act as his duly constituted attorney.
That document was then taken by the parties and duly executed before a Notary Public and filed at the Deeds Registry. The said Rampersaud would have been required to appear personally and sign before that Notary Public and provided his Identification Card in order to verify and confirm his identity. We have no Notary Public in our office.
After the Power of Attorney had been filed and returned to us, we were then instructed to use that Power of Attorney to prepare and file certain conveyances by way of transport, whereby Rampersaud transferred certain properties to Narine Persaud. We did so in the year 2001. The transports were passed on the 13 October, 2001. All these transports were advertised in the official gazette allowing for Mike Persaud and anyone else to oppose them on certain grounds stipulated by law. No opposition was filed. As a result the transports were passed.
We now learnt that Rampersaud died only in 2009. Therefore, assuming that Rampersaud was the victim of some wrong doing, as is contended, he could have challenged all the aforesaid documents during the period 2001 to 2009, i.e. nine years during his lifetime. He did no such thing. We are aware that several years after a third party has challenged the transports and those proceedings are pending in the High Court.
We hope that there will be no further publication of the defamatory matter contained in the letter to which we are responding. We will file legal proceedings if there is a repetition.

SHAMINA KHAN Confidential Secretary Mohabir A. Nandlall & Associates, Attorneys at Law