Dear Editor
A GREAT legal luminary has passed; one whose voluminous service to the law cannot only be quantified by only his mere years of being part of a noble profession, but whose remarkable contribution to law in so many fields have to be measured by its undisputed quality of a very high standard, etched indelibly in so many regions across the globe.
Simply put, Brynmore T Pollard SC, OR, CCH, can be summed up as one who read the law and interpreted its legal tenets as they should be, in a pure and unadulterated fashion. And one could clearly observe this pristine execution, in his seminal legal contributions, to whatever area they were done, whether in CARICOM, within the wider Commonwealth, or in Africa, where his constitutional expertise in the crafting of a number of constitutions, stands as a monument to his unerring application of the law.

Many years ago, I met him in the legal section of the University of Guyana library.

I approached him, enquiring what makes a lawyer. Very approachable, and with a smile that reflected humility, he responded in his somewhat baritone voice: “One who reads the law, understanding what are its requirements, and not attempting to distort its principles for destructive ends or any other ends, not required.” It was an explanation that has always been etched in my memory and understanding as to how the law should be, ever since, and one which I had constantly remembered and referred to, especially during the rise of the many overnight “constitutional experts” as did occur in the aftermath of the infamous No Confidence Motion of December 2018, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruling, and at the level of the Supreme Court in Guyana.

The late legal eminence must have been greatly taken aback and aghast; recoiling at the daily desecration of the country’s constitution, that were bandied in the politically aligned and vested interest sections of the media, both print and electronic.

It is ironic that the Guyana Bar Association, one of the politically aligned organisations that had been a participant in the twisting of the court’s decisions, has paid tribute to the legal master, describing him as “…a true gentleman in and to the law….” and that “…the indelible imprint of his service to the law is seen in the Acts, Regulations and other laws of Guyana.”
Of course, the GBA is pinpointedly accurate in its descriptive tribute to this truly great legal mind. Except that it would have learned absolutely nothing from his numerous legal works, and stand as among the greatest of legal hypocrites, anywhere. How could such an association, which helped to fan the flames of social tension, with its attempts at legal deception, now pay tribute to the late honourable gentleman, who would not have subscribed to such subterfuge?

Regards
Earl Hamilton