TAKING SILK


The first appointment of a Queen’s Counsel in England was that of Sir Francis Bacon, made by Queen Elizabeth 1 in 1594, for a political purpose. Following the tradition that developed since then, the institution is recognized in most of the Commonwealth countries. When lawyers speak of ‘taking silk,’ they are referring to the time of their preferment by elevation to Senior Counsel, formerly Queen’s Counsel. ‘Taking Silk’ refers to the fact that lawyers who are conferred with the honour wear a differently designed robe made of silk. They also speak of being admitted to the ‘inner bar.’ This refers to the second bar table in the well of the Court where, of lawyers, only Senior Counsel may sit.

There has been no shortage of controversy in the Commonwealth about the continuation of the institution or about its reform. Arguments and public discussions on these issues have been going for decades but, with reforms, the institution has been retained. In England appointments were suspended for several years because of concern about fairness. When they resumed in 1995, solicitors were appointed. In some countries academics are appointed. But one of the main areas of controversy is fairness and transparency, even though in developed countries partisan political considerations in appointments have been largely eliminated.

Continue reading “TAKING SILK”

THE PROMISE OF 1950


This is an appropriate time, on the occasion of the celebration of Guyana’s 48th Independence Anniversary, only two years before age 50, to begin the assessment of our condition as an independent nation and try to assess the future. Such a discourse is even more urgent at this time when it must be clear to all that Guyana’s post independence political dispensation is poised for a transformation. While politicians contend with the pressures of managing, or even acknowledging, new political developments, leaving frustration in their wake, there is no doubt that change is upon us – change so dramatic that it will transform our political landscape.

The discourse could begin by asking the question: What did a shovelman (Fred Bowman), a Hindu Priest (Pandit Misir), a lawyer of Chinese heritage (Rudy Luck,), a dentist (Cheddi Jagan), a lawyer and a Guyana Scholar (Forbes Burnham), a transport supervisor and trade unionist of mixed but dominant European extraction (Frank Van Sertima), a school teacher (Sydney King), a mixed heritage transport worker (Ivan Cendrecourt), a woman optician (Sheila La Taste), an American-born woman (Janet Jagan) and a trade unionist (Hubert Critchlow), mostly young people, have in common? These are 11 of the 22 General Council members of the PPP of 1950, chosen at random.

Continue reading “THE PROMISE OF 1950”

RUDISA AND THE GOVERNANCE OF GUYANA


The case of Rudisa Beverages and Juices (Rudisa”) v The State of Guyana, decided by the Caribbean Court of Justice (“CCJ”) on May 8, 2014, exposes not only the state of governance in Guyana over the past two decades but also symbolizes the complete loss of Guyana’s ability to achieve political agreement on any matter of consequence.

Rudisa, a Surinam company, produces and sells beverages in non-returnable containers. Caribbean International Distributors Inc. (“CIDI”), a locally owned subsidiary of Rudisa, imports and sells them in Guyana. They alleged that the imposition by Guyana in 1995, by section 7A of the Customs Act, of an environmental levy or tax of $10 on all imported non-returnable beverage containers imported into Guyana, was discriminatory and amounted to a violation of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (“RTC”) passed into Guyana law in 2006.

Continue reading “RUDISA AND THE GOVERNANCE OF GUYANA”

THE WAR OF THE CLERKS


Events at City Hall once again intruded into national consciousness and demanded the nation’s attention amidst the major concerns of budget cuts, the AML/CFT Bill, the LEAD Programme, the Rodney Inquiry and local government elections.

It is not yet known if the indomitable Mayor Green has finally met his match but his resourcefulness is being tested. The Mayor and Councillors were denied access to the hallowed Council Chamber by Ms. Carol Sooba, the acting Town Clerk, to hold a meeting of the Council. Ms. Sooba, in a legal conclusion, ruled that the meeting was ‘tainted with illegalities.’ The Mayor then convened the meeting in the compound of the tottering City Hall Building, from the roof of which pieces of the building are known to fall from time to time. The Council elected its own Town Clerk, Mr. Royston King. The fallout from the War of the Clerks that is about to erupt.

Continue reading “THE WAR OF THE CLERKS”

THE WALTER RODNEY INQUIRY


The Walter Rodney Inquiry dominated the news last week. The evidence given and hopefully to be given by former and current activists of the WPA and the participation of the PNCR, suggest that the Inquiry will be provided with material, information and oral evidence, to enable it to arrive at a credible conclusion. The Commissioners have already acquitted themselves with dignity and have displayed firmness. The Commission has not been detained by objections to its determination of its own procedure by relaxing the rules evidence as to hearsay, which is a widely adopted practice by COIs. Concern about the Chairman’s impartiality because of a speech at a memorial service for Walter Rodney decades ago, which was apolitical, contained nothing prejudicial against any person or group and expressed sentiments that would have been shared by most Caribbean nationals, have rightly been dismissed.

Walter Rodney’s death could never be understood without knowing of the formation, composition, agenda and activities of the WPA. These must be presented in evidence if the Commission is to have a full and adequate picture of the era. To buttress this evidence the Commission also needs to have copies of all the statements issued by the WPA, all the editions of Dayclean and Open Word, all the relevant statements made by the PNCR and Burnham and a list and analysis of the activities, meetings, rallies of the WPA, collaborative activities with the PPP and other groups and their outcomes. Broad statements so far given by Karen De Souza and Eddie Rodney, though important, are not by themselves sufficient. Proof of the atmosphere of fear, intimidation, violence and terror that pervaded that era must be laid bare before the Commission.

Continue reading “THE WALTER RODNEY INQUIRY”