Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter written by Mr Christopher Ram and published in Stabroek News on August 3, under the caption ‘Has Mr Nandlall offered cautionary advice to his client?’ This letter appears to be a response to a letter of mine published in Stabroek News on August 1, where I wrote as attorney-at-law for the plaintiff in the case in which Mr Kissoon, the editor and the publishers of the Kaieteur News are the defendants.
This is the second occasion on which Mr Ram has responded in the press to letters written by me which touch and concern matters of law. The first is a piece I did on the amendment to Title to Land (Prescription and Limitation) Act, earlier this year. In both of these responses, I have observed that Mr Ram has allowed an impertinent pen to wander way beyond the issue at hand, and on each occasion, Mr Ram’s letters degenerated inexplicably into attacks on President Jagdeo. Hopefully, with the passage of time, Mr Ram may recognize that relevance is the compass by which legal debates are guided.
In the letter under review, without uttering a single word on the propriety or lack thereof of his client’s publication, Mr Ram accuses President Jagdeo, of committing the same wrong of which I am accusing Mr Kissoon. Assuming but not admitting that President Jagdeo has committed such wrongs, does this provide the basis for Mr Ram’s client to do likewise? The philosophical flaw in this type of legal reasoning was made universally popular by Mahatma Gandhi nearly three quarters of a century ago, and I see no reason to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that I have already drawn Mr Kissoon’s attention to the issue at hand, as I am compelled to do. Whether he pays me any mind or not, is a matter completely for him and his legal advisors. Fortunately for him, Mr Ram is not the only one. If Mr Ram feels so aggrieved by the perceived wrongs committed by my client, he should, as I did, begin to take steps to curb these alleged excesses.
Mr Ram enquires whether I proffered certain advice to my client. Unfortunately, I cannot disclose to Mr Ram, or anyone else, the advice which I tender to my client. This is privileged information. This concept has, apparently, also eluded Mr Ram.
Mr Ram next contends that neither he, nor Mr Ramjattan, requested from the Chief Justice an early date for the trial of the action. Well, I have already stated my position on this issue which I confirmed with the Chief Justice before I published my letter. I see no need to repeat the same here. But more importantly, that is water under the bridge. The matter is now fixed for trial. Most litigants and lawyers alike, welcome an early trial, especially when adverse rulings made against them or their interests, are ordered to continue in force until the trial of the action. Such a ruling has been made against Mr Ram’s clients. So, let’s proceed to trial in the courts of law where Mr Ram can truly demonstrate his legal expertise. The letters column of the newspapers is not the proper forum.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall
Attorney-at-Law for
President Bharrat Jagdeo
