Disgusted by the ‘scheming’

Dear Editor,
AS a profoundly grateful beneficiary of President L.F.S Burnham’s policy of full scholarship awards to all Guyanese (without regard to race or political persuasion) to read/study law at the U.W.I Cave Hill Campus (Barbados) and the Hugh Wooding Law School (Trinidad and Tobago), I have read with utter disgust and anguish, the machinations and scheming of Anil Nandlall, Reginald Armour (present Chairman of the Council of legal Education); and to a lesser degree former Chief Justice Carl Singh, to frustrate (actively, or passively by omission, as the case may be) the policy of this APNU+AFC government to have established here in Guyana the “Joseph Haynes Law School” (see GC, Sunday December 10, 2017 report under caption “Law School conspiracy”; KN, Monday December 11 “AG accuses Nandlall, former chancellor of blocking efforts to establish local law school”).

The story, as illuminatingly told to us by the Hon. Attorney General And Minister of Legal Affairs Basil Williams S.C, leads to an irresistible inference of some mischief and sinister motive. So, one wonders whether on one possible view, inter alia, a motive is: the preservation and persistence of the status quo which translates into PPP dominance in the legal profession and its derivative – the higher and lower judiciary, even as I acknowledge the doctrine of independence of the Judiciary). Here is my analysis.

First of all, in the sphere of legal education (in pursuit of citizens constitutional right to free education up to university) a Guyanese student having now obtained his/her LLB. Degree right here at the University of Guyana, cannot be admitted to practise law until and unless he/she obtains the Legal Education Certificate (LEC), presently obtainable from the Hugh Wooding Law School (HWLS). So, legal education is conceived of, in such entirety.

With us here in Guyana, it is a most notorious fact that most legal education aspiring students will most likely not be able to afford the financial costs associated with being at HWLS to obtain that necessary LEC, particularly Africans and Amerindians. The answer and effective remedy for such jeopardy, hardship and financial disability is the establishment of a JHLS.

Besides, there are manifestations of institutional intolerance for Guyanese students at HWLS. So, the question must be asked of both Nandlall and Carl Singh: what did you do in your time of influence and trust as attorney general and chancellor (ag) respectively, to remedy this jeopardy and intolerance? Nothing. Nandlall showed no initiative, Carl Singh, no interest. Why? For how much longer must the pursuit of legal education in its entirety by those citizens under such disability, remain only aspirational, and elusive.

And paradoxically, the whole beneficial purpose of law schools such as HWLS is (as per the recitals in the Council of Legal Education, Act Cap 4:04) “to give assurance that the whole scheme for legal education will be implemented in its entirety.” To the lawyer’s question: is HWLS as presently operated, advancing or conducing towards this “assurance” for those Guyanese? The answer is – NO. It defeats it. In these premises, it is not far-fetched to suppose that Nandlall (as a notable PPP member) is pursuing a PPP anti-student agenda when he e-mails the Council of Legal Education (CLE) present Chairman opposing the establishment of a JHLS; and that, that agenda is motivated by considerations of a preservation of PPP dominance in the legal profession.

Secondly, (and as a corollary of my first point), racial imbalance in the legal profession is a notorious fact. And this is not because of some pathological or hereditary indisposition of that minority to be lawyers. Not at all. This imbalance is, and must be attributed (since the end of L.F.S Burnham’s policy of which I and many others are beneficiaries) to this present system which obligates Guyanese students to have to obtain the LEC at HWLS.

Third, turning to the role of present chairman of the LEC Reginald Armour, SC in this scheming. It appears to me to be an irresistible inference that he is a FACILITATOR and joint enterpriser in this anti-Guyanese-students contrivance to frustrate (if not avoid) the establishment of the JHLS. The time-lines and events as outlined by the attorney general in the GC report speak for themselves. On Monday, January 16, 2017 at a PPP press conference, Nandlall denounces and opposes the JHLS establishment. By e-mail dated 21 January 2017 Nandlall communicates his opposition to the JHLS, to Armour.

By e-mail dated January 23, 2017, Armour assures Nandlall that his opposition would be put on the Council of Legal Education meeting agenda for consideration. On Wednesday, 25 January, 2017, a Review Committee (chaired by Armour) convened and decided to publish in other Caribbean and T&T media that Guyana had no permission from the CLE to establish a law school, without affording AG Williams a hearing on the matter, even though in September 2016 the full Council of Legal Education, then chaired by Jacquiline Samuels-Brown, QC, made a decision/determination of prior approval for the establishment of a law school, subject to certain conditions.

Nandlall, it is easy to see, was, with his accustomed degree of flippancy, pedantry and naked malice towards AG Williams, just being a mischievous busy body in sending that e-mail; having no standing or business whatsoever in the matter, and arrogating unto himself roles/power he did not have. What relevant interest did he have when as AG(2011-2015 June) he took no initiative to further the establishment of a local law school (by whatever name) This was 2017. Nandlall had long demitted office as AG since June 2015.

Why then did Chairman Armour tolerate and facilitate his unauthorised intermeddling? And, but for that reckless Nandlall 21 January e-mail, would the Review Committee have made a deferment decision in September 2017? En passant, can a Review Committee overrule the full CLE?. Is a “determination “by the Jacquiline Samuels-Brown, QC chaired Council, reviewable by a subsequent Council (a Reginald Armour chaired one) or is the previous determination/decision resjudicata? Is there no finality to a CLE decision?

Fourth, (as a corollary of the third) even as I hold no brief for our Attorney General, it is difficult to conceive how our AG can have any confidence that in his three years chairmanship, Armour will be unbiased in any future deliberations over this JHLS matter. As lawyers we know only too well where bias can, and does, take an adjudicator. I am aware that he is not a one-person Council; but chairmanship has power and influences. In the events which have happened, there is a real danger that Armour will be biased in favour of an intermeddling Nandlall. At least he must recuse himself; at worst he should resign his chairmanship. Attorney General Williams must raise objections to his chairmanship in 2018.

Fifth, turning now to former chancellor (ag) Carl Singh. Did he vote at the 25 January 2017 Review Committee meeting? Carl Singh has denied attendance/participating (GC, December 12, 2017 captioned “was never part of any committee discussion on proposed law school for Guyana – Carl Singh”). At worst, the seeming confusion about what the AG meant, and was intending to say (in the GC report supra) about Carl Singh as regards the January 25, 2017 Review Committee decision to cause a publication in the Caribbean/T&T media as mentioned above, is all attributable to Armour.

It was Armour, SC who, voluntarily, and presumably for some good reason, made reference to Carl Singh in the oral discussion with the AG about the January 25, 2017 Review Committee meeting. Carl Singh was a member of that RC; AG Williams is/was not a member and is not privy to what happened and who participated (presumably there is a record of minutes). Armour can best explain why he made reference to Singh. But what is intriguing, remarkable, and alarming and unwittingly self-incriminating about this strident denial (and which lends some support to the AG’s substantive contention) is the palpable DISINTEREST of Carl Singh in this JHLS matter, as is to be deduced from his GC letter.

His membership of the RC was from 2009 to February 2017 (9 years). Why was he not interested, at any rate from when AG Williams assumed office and put JHLS establishment on the front burner of matters at the CLE. If on the contrary he was, why such ad hoc, indolent, lack of due diligence attendance/participation? He owes an explanation.

His immediate predecessor (Bernard, C) agitated for a local law school? Why his departure from such posturing? While Nandlall is plainly an active non-supporter of a JHLS in Guyana, Carl Singh might with reason, be accused of passive non-support. Nandlall is a non-supporter by commission; Carl Singh, by omission. And being since 2007 the Head of the Judiciary, such passivity on a matter that touches and concerns the legal profession, legal education in its entirety and the delivery of justice, certainly needs some explaining away. That GC letter does not help! His omission not to attend was a serious breach of trust.

Presumably, he was aware of Armour’s intent to reopen the JHLS matter at the RC meeting. The establishment of a JHLS in Guyana cannot be considered a separation of powers executive branch of government exclusive matter, so that a chancellor should have no business in it, nor, be seen to be concerned about such matter. Not at all. What might have been had he attended/participated and made representations of both legal and factual purport favouring Guyana’s position.

Sixth, it may well be (I express no considered opinion) that upon a strict interpretation of Section 3 of the Council of Legal Education Act Cap 4:04 (ie the “force of law” of specifically Articles ‘1’, ‘5’, ‘6’ and ‘9’ only) Guyana is not legally bound by Article 3(b) which confers on the CLE the function and power to determine the establishment of other law schools (expressio unius est exclusio alterius – ie the expression of that specific thing is the exclusion of others not mentioned).

The practice is a different matter. I stir this point because Nandlall seeks to justify his intermeddling by some concern that Guyana is in breach of its treaty obligations. He ignores completely what has been a creeping intolerance for Guyanese law students at HWLS, which has metamorphosed into a quota situation (a maximum of 25) with the connivance and acquiescence of previous trustees like Nandlall and Carl Singh (more details appear in the GC report of December 10).

Guyanese law students (present and future) should be grateful that trustee AG Williams is an activist on a crusade to put an end to such intolerance, by his activism for a JHLS. What an irony, that even that socio-economic class that can afford attendance at HWLS would benefit.

I end with this: for us on this side of the argument, it is not only of some necessity, but of paramount necessity that JHLS be established. If there was justification for a third law school (ie “Eugene Dupuch Law School” in the Bahamas); the case for the addition of the JHLS as a fourth law school, is even more compelling and justified. The surrogates of the PPP must, come hell or high water, be thwarted in their active or passive efforts to frustrate or prevent its establishment.

Regards
Maxwell E. Edwards
Attorney–at–Law

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.