FORMER Deputy Solicitor-General Prithima Kissoon on Saturday lashed back at Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams for statements he made Friday which suggested that she lacked professionalism while citing dereliction of duty.
In a lengthy response issued through her attorney Nigel Hughes, Kissoon said she had read with considerable “consternation and disbelief the complete lack of accuracy and honesty set out in the press release issued by the Chambers of the Attorney General in relation to the termination of my services, my alleged lack of professionalism and dereliction from duty.”

She argued that prior to the beginning of court proceedings she instituted against Attorney General Basil Williams, she was never accused by Williams or the Public Service Commission of lack of professionalism or dereliction of duty.
“There is no such charge pending anywhere in the Republic of Guyana,” she stated.
“The basis for my purported termination was that I left the country after I was sent on leave by the Public Service Commission and failed to notify them of this event while I was on leave,” Kissoon declared.

The former deputy solicitor-general said that every submission she had prepared and presented to court was submitted to the attorney general for consideration.
“I have never failed to provide the attorney general well in advance with my intended submissions in all matters involving the State. It was the attorney general who instructed his staff to desist from receiving my draft submissions which led to my emailing them to him well in advance of all court appearances,” she asserted.

As it relates to her remuneration package as referred to in the attorney general’s response, Kissoon made it clear that the quantum of same is not fixed or determined by her, but is set and approved by members of the National Assembly.
“I was unaware that there were latent considerations and qualifications from which I was precluded for matriculation for the position of deputy solicitor- general by dint of birth and perhaps ethnicity.

“I was never acting solicitor-general; such an appointment has to be made by the Judicial Services Commission,” Kissoon added.

With specific reference to the Carvil Duncan case, where the attorney general accused Kissoon of causing the secretary to Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo to sign an incomplete affidavit and “subsequently inserted her own facts which were gravely different to the instructions given by the deponent and caused same to be filed with incorrect facts”, Kissoon said, “I drafted the affidavit of the Honourable Moses Verasammy Nagamootoo, the Prime Minister and First Vice-President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and that of his confidential secretary, Ms. Deeann Ali, which were both emailed to the office of the prime minister for review by Ms. Tamara Khan, legal officer, for additions and alterations and to the attorney general which he acknowledged receiving.”

The former deputy solicitor-general said same is evidenced by email correspondence attached to her affidavit in reply filed in the High Court.

A MISTAKE
“If the attorney general felt that I had compromised the pleadings of the affidavit in answer of the Prime Minister, Mr. Moses Nagamootoo, and his confidential secretary, Ms. Deann Ali, then he had a right and duty to request leave of the court to file supplementary affidavits from the deponents which he did not do and therefore he is labouring under a mistake or fashioning a distortion,” she stated.

In Hareshnarine Sugrim v National Drainage and Irrigation Authority 2015-HC-DEM-W-193 case, Kissoon said she was not permitted to finish her conduct of the case because she was sent on administrative leave, and as a result, never saw the submissions in reply of Counsel, Ms. Abiola Wong-Inniss, who appeared for the Plaintiff, Sugrim.

“The attorney general had written to the President, H.E. Brigadier David A. Granger, the Honourable Justice Diane Insanally and Ms. Abiola Wong-Innis informing them that he would appear personally and conduct the trial before Her Honour. The attorney general wrote and sought numerous adjournments from Her Honour which were granted. However, the court decided to commence the trial, having accommodated his requests for over a month. The trial commenced and concluded without the attorney general ever appearing.”
Williams said Kissoon did not support his contention, therefore allowing counsel for the plaintiff to rely on Kissoon’s failure as an advantage for her case.

RIPE OPPORTUNITY
“The attorney general had the ripe opportunity to respond to counsel’s submissions and dethrone the plaintiffs case and remedy any defects in my submissions, yet this did not happen,” declared Kissoon. Additionally, the aggrieved woman said the statements made by the attorney general are a “deliberate and malicious fabrication of the events surrounding the granting of the consent Order of Court that was given by the Court of Appeal in the matter of the Attorney General v Desmond Morian Action No 2016-HC-DEM-CIV-CM-55 …referred to as the “Two Ministers Case.”

Kissoon said that on November 4, 2016, she appeared in the Court of Appeal for three other cases over which she had oversight, namely: Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2016, Appeal by Bheri Ramsarran, Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2013, The Public Service Commission et al v Kareem Abdul Jabar for hearing in Chamber and Civil Appeal NO. 81 of 2013, Clement Toney v The Registrar of the Supreme Court et al for hearing before the Full Bench.
“Whilst there, before the court was convened, I received a call from Ms. Jones, an office assistant, informing me that I have to appear in addition, to the aforementioned matters for the matter of Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2016, Attorney General v Desmond Morian, to which I responded I was already in court and embarrassed because I was without the file and expressed shock that I would be given notice of a matter of such grave importance so belatedly, there must be a severe mistake.”

The former deputy solicitor-general said she had never received notice, neither was she informed that a notice was received by the chambers until she was told by the chancellor in court that a notice was received by Ms. C Henry.
“Ms. Henry is the personal assistant to the solicitor-general. I was never instructed that this matter was listed before the Court of Appeal. I received only the frantic call from Ms. Jones, the office assistant, without the written notice or file.
“On my return to the Chambers on the 4th, November, 2016, I telephoned and duly informed the attorney general that the matter was heard and the consent order was made. I also informed him that I had not received the notice prior to my appearance in the Court of Appeal and as a result was without the file and without knowing the facts, he verbally abused and insulted me as being incompetent.”
Additionally, Kissoon states that the attorney general appealed and applied for the stay before the Court of Appeal and any consent was in the State’s favour.
“The attorney general has clearly attempted to defend his prejudices when his objective from the time he entered the Chambers was to remove me from my post,” she alleged.

ADVICE NOT ACCEPTED
In the case of Berbice Bharati Saywah Sanga et al. v The Attorney General No.995/CM of 2001, Kissoon said she advised Williams to settle the matter at a lesser sum of seven million dollars which counsel on the other side was willing to accept and “he arrogantly refused.”
The Court of Appeal in the Berbice Bharati Sawywah Sanga case had made an order by a majority decision that the matter be referred to the High Court for the sole and only determination on the quantum of damages.

The former PPP/C government, had compulsorily acquired the Sangha premises for the building of what is now popularly called “The University of Guyana, Berbice Tain Campus.”
“The Attorney General remained heedless to my advice both orally and tendered in writing, to settle the matter out of court on the quantum of compensation for $7M. Mr. Murseline Bacchus, attorney-at-law, had written to the attorney general as well seeking a settlement and was willing to accept this lesser sum.”
The court awarded judgment in the sum of $30M. Justice Sandra Kurtzious ordered and found that the plaintiffs/applicants were entitled to compensation.
They were previously paid $3M, thus the court ordered that the plaintiffs/applicants be paid the sum of $17.8M as full and final compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their property.

“The attorney general has libelled me in the press in the Attorney General v Bharrat Jagdeo case. The appeal in the Jagdeo case was filed by the solicitor- general, who has publicly stated that the attorney general was adamant he be named as the appellant. At the time the appeal was filed I was on vacation leave and with the oral approval of the attorney general I had left the jurisdiction,” Kissoon contends.
She accused the attorney general of having received a copy of the prepared affidavit in answer that she emailed to him four times on differing days; a copy of which was given to his confidential secretary, Ms. Demi Hipplewith.
“I waited on his instructions, comments, additions or alterations to the submitted affidavit in answer but none were forthcoming.”

“Mr. Basil Williams S.C., who appeared in person before the Court of Appeal on the 9th January, 2017, sought leave of the court to lay over and serve further written submissions in response if necessary to the submissions made by counsel for Mr. Jagdeo, Mr. Murseline Bacchus, by the 13th January, 2017. The attorney general never filed the affidavit in answer, never argued his case orally or in written submissions as a legal luminary and eminent counsel,” Kissoon stated.
Nonetheless, the former solicitor-general said that in March 2017, she was informed by the PSC that she should proceed on administrative leave with immediate effect pending the outcome of investigations into several court matters for which she was responsible.
“The PSC did not give a period of time limit with regard to how long I was to remain on administrative leave and there were no conditions attached to my administrative leave. I was effectively relieved from duty by the PSC pending the outcome of the investigations. I was now under the authority of the PSC,” she stated.

She said too that the PSC through its Secretary, Ms. Marvalyn Stephens, had advised that if she intended to travel overseas she must inform them and provide contact details. Kissoon said she wrote to the PSC, indicating that she would be travelling out of the jurisdiction and provided two contact numbers and an email address for any “pertinent communication regarding their enquiries.”
“I believe the appropriate forum for these matters is the court, a venue at which I look forward to engaging the attorney general,” she concluded.