ONE of the most used quotes in the world in the English language – “the law is an ass” – comes from Charles Dickens’ book, Oliver Twist. I doubt this expression will ever die once humans disagree with court decisions.
I have been writing since 1988 and I cannot count the times I have used that quote and the times I have read other people using it including all the editors I have worked under.  It is a cynical exclamation by humans who believe that the law is sometimes applied too rigidly without taking into account changing times.

Recently, we have a politician who has given a most ridiculous interpretation of how the law operates in Guyana. That politician is Sherwood Lowe, the current advisor to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Lowe got low in his Dickensian disagreements with how he sees the law in Guyana.

In response to Chief Magistrate, Judy Latchman, wrongfully remanding Baby Skello, Lowe told the media that even though it was a decision from the judiciary and not from the government, the authoritarian nature of the government influences how the courts give their decision.

Mr. Lowe describes how the government shapes judicial outputs. He explained that a magistrate or a judge will want a favour from the government, maybe a contract, maybe a job. With this current or futuristic expectation, the judicial officers will rule in favour of the State. For more on the abominable descent of Mr. Lowe, see my column of Tuesday, June 17, 2025, “Guyana has some stupid politicians.”
One week after this despicable attack on the judiciary, two decisions were given in favour of three anti-government activists who are perennial critics of the Government. In fact, one is a sitting opposition parliamentarian, Mr. Sherod Duncan, and the other is as card-bearing member of the opposition, PNC, and former Georgetown Mayor, Ubraj Narine. The third person is one of the most extremist haters of the ruling PPP – Mr. Rickford Burke.

All three defendants were charged by the State for criminal offences. Mr. Burke was freed of criminal defamation. Messrs. Narine and Duncan were freed of violation of the Cyber Crime Act. Now bear in mind, Mr. Lowe contended that the magistrate knew how the State felt about Baby Skello so she decided to remand him.
Now how can the State do that to Baby Skello but Burke can win a case when Burke remains one of the most obnoxious anti-government activists this country has seen in the past 40 years? How did the influence of the government evaporate in the case of Burke?

The answer is simple. There was no evaporation in either Burke’s case or those of Narine and Duncan. The court ruled based on the rule of law. What is involved here is the asininity of opposition politicians. This asininity is easy to describe. When the State wins a criminal or civil case against a defendant, it is because the judiciary is either threatened by ruling politicians or the judicial officers are biased.
When the anti-government defendants win in the courts, there is celebration, and there is neat and complete avoidance of the Sherwood Lowe theory. In fact, Burke was in fact celebrating. And there isn’t a word from Lowe. But wait until tomorrow and the stupidity will continue.

Tomorrow, if the State wins against an anti-government activist, the judiciary suddenly becomes a poodle. And tomorrow will come and the State will win and Burke and Lowe will come alive with the theory of governmental interference. As night follows day, we will get the usual barking from Burke when the government wins in the court, and Lowe will resurrect his stupid theory.

In the midst of this irrationality is the reduction of people like Burke and Lowe to absurd and comical figures that look stupid in the eyes of the nation. People like Burke and Lowe make the government look good and any government will look good when its opponents cry out one day that the judiciary is biased when a judicial decision is in favour of the State and the same criers celebrate when the State loses.

It is the existence of this combination of comicality and absurdity that continues to kill the credibility of the opposition. The adviser to the parliamentary opposition tells the nation that the judiciary wants things from the government so it will give decisions that benefit the government and one week after saying that, a really dangerous and repugnant anti-government extremist gets a decision in his favour and he jumps for joy. And while he is in the air celebrating, the nation looks at him and calls him a fool because the nation knows tomorrow he will cuss down the very judiciary when it rules against him.