THE Ombudsman, retired Judge Winston Moore has refuted claims in some sections of the media that he has ruled on the complaint filed by Kaieteur News Columnist and former lecturer at the University of Guyana, Freddie Kissoon. 

“I did not conduct any investigation nor did I make any findings into the matter,” he said in the letter to the media.
Justice Moore said that he was drawn to the reports in the press that he had ruled on Kissoon’s complaint and had recommended compensation. Clarifying the status of the complaint filed with his office by Kissoon against the University claiming wrongful dismissal, the Ombudsman said, “I sought and obtained council’s opinion on the issue and transmitted same to the registrar of the University of Guyana.”
Justice Moore said that in his correspondence to the university he was careful to state that his office was advised of council’s opinion. This he said was in keeping with the practice of the Ombudsman’s office. The Ombudsman had sought and received opinions from the law firms of Fraser, Housty & Yearwood and de Caires Fitzpatrick and Karran.
Quoting from various Statutes in the University of Guyana Act (Chapter 39:02) Attorney-at-Law G N Fraser in his written opinion to the Ombudsman acknowledged that Statute 3 (2) empowers the University Council may at any time remove any person from membership of the university notwithstanding that he is qualified to be a member. He also opined that that Kissoon by virtue of his contract was a member of the University.
The opinion also noted that Kissoon’s contract did provide for his termination on notice or in lieu thereof.
Fraser, however, pointed out that Kissoon’s letter of appointment had stated that he is subject to the Act and Statute of the University, the Code of Conduct and Conditions of Service for temporary members of staff for the time being in force.
The prescribed procedure as outlined in Statute 25 dealing with the procedure for termination shows that Kissoon was not given the due process. Further that the minutes of the meeting seemed to indicate that the rescinding of the contract was motivated by the opinion of members of the University Council that Kissoon’s research profile was not impressive and his research works were not of any academic claim but his contract of employment did not contain any imposition or requirement regarding same.
He further outlined that Kissoon’s contract did not expressly state that the university was entitled to dismiss him without cause, but the Statute allows the University Council to dismiss only with cause. Therefore, the University Council was entitled to dismiss Kissoon but only in accordance with Statute 25, therefore failure to do so constituted a breach of the University Statute.
In the written opinion of Attorney-at-Law Miles Fitzpatrick pointing to Statute 25 also, he highlighted the absence of Kissoon being given the opportunity to be heard before his contract was terminated.
Kissoon’s contract was terminated in January 2012 following a meeting of the University Council. The termination of the contract was done to correct an anomaly where the Vice Chancellor had renewed the contract of 12 retired academic staff who were over the age of 60 years without the approval of the Appointments Committee and Council as is required by the University Act.

(By Raymon Cummings)