Dear Editor

AFTER reading PPP/C’s legal counsel Sanjeev Datadin’s statement, expressing his disappointment as to the type of Consequential Orders delivered by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), some measure of surprise is appropriate as to his subsequent statements.
In a headlined story, “Won the battle but lost the war,” Kaieteur News July 12, 2019, Datadin complained that, “We are disappointed that what the Court did not do was to be firm. Under our Constitution the Court had the power to issue such writ, give such power, give such directions, make such orders. But unfortunately, we are likely in a position where you’ve won the battle but lost the war.”  There was another line further in the report where he said” …it will now be the people who will suffer.”

Editor, I am not an attorney, except for some amount of reading of basic law, deemed enough for a better understanding of the world and everyday life. But it still does not make me an expert, since I have not been trained in the of field law. However, from a purely layman’s position, I find Datadin’s pronouncements, puzzling, if not, downright dishonest. For he should be aware that it was not the remit of the CCJ, or any court for that matter, that adheres to the dictum of the Separation of Powers, to cross those lines of non-intervention, that will mean a making of political decisions, a matter that is purely the preserve of the Executive.

Given the political minefield of Guyana’s matters that were before the Court, and the dishonest machinations which underpinned at least two of their creations, it was evident that the CCJ had not any interest in becoming involved. Clearly, their primary and overriding concerns have been the issue of the upholding of the Rule of Law.

But they also discerned, and quite rightly so, the very disputatious matter of house-to-house registration that stood at the heart of this sacred tenet of the law. It was quite obvious that this clashed with their concern for the Rule of Law, and perhaps, explained their advice of a consensus being the medium for making it much easier for whatever consequential orders they had to make.  In the end, they had to be concerned with the Rule of Law, ensuring that as a court of law they uphold same. Such was their judicial mission, and not to become embroiled in matters which are rightly the preserve of the Executive.

One would have to assume that as an attorney, and one who has made so many interpretative statements on our constitution, such as the one that said Jagdeo could not become prime minister, in light of the Third Term decision, that Datadin must have been aware of that. Therefore, one must ask, just why did he take on board, Jagdeo’s absurd demands that amounted to asking the Court to make political orders for Guyana; something which he should have known that the Court would reject outright, particularly since they would have given clear signals of staying above our domestic political situation, by asking for a consensual position, as pointed out earlier?

Further, was his public statement uttering disappointment genuinely done; or was it merely a veneer of pretence?
Referring to the understanding of the statement that the people will suffer as a result of the non-issuance of the “firm writs,” Datadin should be ashamed of parroting the well-known, traditional line of PPP/C dark lies and offensive propaganda.

I will be the first to admit that there are still many persons who are socio-economically challenged, compliments of 23 years of successful maladministration and criminality of every type that benefitted friends and cronies of the PPP/C. But, Datadin must know that Guyana has changed immensely since 2015, with many communities and their citizens beginning to reap the benefits of the coalition’s numerous socio-economic programmes that have been ushering in renewal. And here, one must ask of Datadin: where was he during the years of the descent of this country into the authoritarian grip of the PPP/C regime,

when civil liberties and free speech were held hostage; when citizens lost their voices and were afraid to complain, unlike today? Where was this attorney, when the Rule of Law was being desecrated, with citizens’ rights being abused; shot down like dogs; detained beyond the statutory 72 hours without charges; police personnel brutalising citizens, of which I am sure you must have been aware, as clients would have brought such matters

for representation? Surely, you must have been aware of measly wages and salaries being made to the working-class employees, and of the disrespectful five per cent thrown like a sop to public service workers every Christmas, as the friends and cronies of the PPP/C waxed fat from the pillage of the state?

Datadin, by his shameful attempt to defend a PPP/C governance record which is indefensible, has not done himself any moral good. He is identified by his political company.  A sad day for morality.

Regards

Earl Hamilton