Dear Sir,
KINDLY permit me some space in your newspapers to discharge a civic duty which, as an experienced lawyer, it is my responsibility to discharge. I have been handed this news link by someone whose friendship I highly respect, and had been requested to give my legal opinion on a very troubling situation of important national and international proportions.

The content of this article concerns the issue of the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry and the delivery or non-delivery of the Report of the Commission’s findings. The facts of this matter are many and various, but it is imperative to decipher what facts are important and what issues are of similar nature. The Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry (COI) was made up of “…commissioners Seenath Jairam, SC, and Sir Richard Cheltenham and Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, QC…”, with Sir Richard Cheltenham being designated the Chairman.

An impressive array of legal Silk, Senior Counsels, and with one of them holding the status of knighthood. I can imagine why other lawyers will not be prepared to go “head to head” against this set up. However, everyone knows that I am not one to be cowed by any one person, or even groups of persons, where issues of right and wrong, legal and illegal, justice and injustice are concerned. In this case, a very serious case of illegality, injustice and total wrongdoing is about to be perpetuated against the Guyanese population, and more particularly against the high office of the Presidency of this country.

This Commission of Inquiry was set up, and hundreds of millions of Guyanese dollars were spent on its operations. This fact was already established. The fact that the Commission was a Presidential Commission was also established. This paragraph appeared in the GuyanaCaribbeanPolitics article. “…the CoI was set up two years ago by the then Donald Ramotar-led government, which said it wanted to clear up all outstanding questions surrounding Rodney’s death…”
Since this was a Presidential Commission, then the legal eagles should have known that only a recognized “Presidential Dispensation” by the current sitting President of Guyana would be proper and legal termination of this activity.

The legal “luminaries” do not need me or anyone else to advise them that the “Onus”, or legal burden, was on them all, singularly and together, to faithfully carry out all instructions and directions to have the law on their side when their charges and duties came to an end.

Here is where the situation becomes interesting. The newspapers and other news media are reporting that the Commissioners are alleging that they have completed their work and have handed in their report to the Secretary of the Attorney General, on the instructions of His Excellency, Mr. David Granger, President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana. This is the first injustice to the name of Mr. David Granger as a person, and then to the Office of the President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana. In my opinion, the facts asserted that His Excellency the President NEVER SPOKE to any one of the Commissioners, or even the Chairman. The Commissioners themselves said as much. Some news reports carried this statement from them, that they acted “…following instructions reported to have come from President David Granger…”.

The Commissioners never saw the President, neither did they even speak to him on the phone. They knew this. No proper lawyer should have found themselves in that situation, moreso a bunch of “legal eagles”.

The Commissioners were offered a direct link to the president.
The news report in the GuyanaCarribeanpolitics read as follows: “The Attorney General (Mr. Basil Williams) said that the President was unavailable to receive it at any of the times indicated. He further advised that he, the Attorney General, would be out of office early on Tuesday morning but that we (the Commissioners) should deliver the Report to his office,” it was noted.

According to the commissioners, despite this advice, they felt that it would be “improper and inappropriate” to deliver a presidential report to the AG’s office…”

The Attorney General is this country’s representative on all legal matters, and is the direct legal adviser to the country’s President, so when the commissioners decided to ignore the instructions and directions, they were putting themselves outside of his protection. The law caters for this situation, and every law student will tell you that they will then be regarded as having “gone off on a frolic of their own”, and that whatever ill should befall them down that road, that they should thereon consider themselves responsible for their actions.

Here is the legal frolic: The news reports stated that the commissioners issued a statement claiming that they tried to get into the Office of the President to speak to the president and that they tried calling. They stated that “…On a third try, they said the call was answered by a woman who confirmed that she was the president’s secretary…” By that time they were pretty much on their own. How could they confirm anything about who was saying what?

In the meantime, the Office of the President issued this statement,
“…the Ministry of the Presidency last evening said the president was disappointed at the commissioners’ inability to arrange their work so as to enable them to present the report at the agreed time and date after several requests for extensions were granted…”

His Excellency the President was, and is, quite within his right to expect that all engagements and appointments for his time are strictly kept by members of the public, who expect to have any audience, interview or other appearance before him. The Commissioners did not show up at the time and date that was appointed for them.

This is the President of our country, and all must abide by the rules, whether you reside in this country or not. That is where the law stops: On the side of Mr. David A Granger, and what were his expectations.

However, there is a much more serious matter that negates the existence of this so-called Commission and the transfer of funds from the nation’s treasury and into the private pockets of the individual commissioners. The facts seem to suggest that there was no legal contract for the setting up of this commission and its operations and obligations towards the Guyanese people. The GuyanaCaribbeanpolitics article had these two (2) paragraphs, “…Williams told reporters at Parliament last week that the commissioners could not have been paid because there was no contract. The contract attending this entire exercise was requested from the Chairman of the Commission, and on that question being asked, he disclosed that they never had any contract,” Williams said, while adding that he found the revelation “disturbing…”

Mr. Basil Williams used the word “disturbing”, and he is being kind. In my experience from practice at the Criminal Bar, where sums of money had been removed from the National Treasury without legal and proper documentation, such actions amount to indictable offences triable before judge and jury, in appropriate cases. These “legal eagles” should have known better.

This could mean a lot of trouble for them. If Mr. Williams should set foot inside the CID office, without a doubt, the nation could see a massive investigation into this entire affair. This whole matter has the potential to go very far in the interest of justice for the Guyanese people.

As a Republic, the remedies for wrongdoing against the nation can go in the form of exile for some nationals. In the prevailing circumstances, the learned Attorney General has all of the cards. The commissioners should urgently make contact with him and make arrangements to make this situation right. It is the only legal advice that they should take from me.

Yours faithfully,
JULIET HOLDER-ALLEN
Attorney-at-law