Dear Editor,
To practise law in England and Wales one must belong to one of the four Inns operating in England, In 1988 Sukul was made a member of Lincoln’s Inn. For those who don’t know what Lincoln’s Inn is, I offer this explanation from the Wikipedia encyclopedia.
“The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn is one of four Inns of Court in London to which barristers of England and Wales belong and where they are called to the Bar. The other three are Middle Temple, Inner Temple and Gray’s Inn. It is believed to be named after Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln.”
Some time in 2012 Mr Sukul became the object of disciplinary proceedings before a UK tribunal for an alleged offence which has been adequately described by the local newspapers. Whatever intervened would be pure speculation but Mr Sukul came to Guyana and was appointed to the Appeal Court in July 2013 nearly one year after the charges of professional misconduct were instituted against him in England.
Since Mr Sukul was a member of Lincoln’s Inn, a simple question to that body requesting information as to Mr Sukul’s standing as an attorney might possibly have revealed that he was under investigation for gross professional misconduct and that a decision was pending. This was one phone call, Editor, and neither the person nor persons who recommended this man for appointment as an appellate court judge in this country including the Attorney General who holds the position of chief legal advisor to the President, sought to make this simple phone call to Lincoln’s Inn. Mr Nandlall informs us that a Law Lord told them that Mr Sukul was in good standing, but he neglects to name the Law Lord, and we would be very interested in who this person is.
The matter takes on an even more interesting aspect when it is now understood that nothing distinguished Mr Sukul’s service at the English bar, nor had he ever served as a judge in England or even a magistrate, but we nevertheless bring him here and put him in the highest judicial forum in the land. Since Mr Nandlall is speaking to the public through the newspapers and I am a member of the public, I am prompted to ask what sort of due diligence is this? Is this how Mr Nandlall seeks to protect our legal system and his President? I am asking that the question of who recommended Mr Sukul be put to him in the Guyana Parliament. Also the question as to how exactly Mr Sukul was appointed to the Appeal Court should be put to him as the Minister of Justice in this country.
We are now left with a number of problems: a. the judicial system, already unpopular in this country (according to a poll which was done some years ago) has now been brought into further disrepute; b. why was the background of this man not diligently checked in view of the high post we were giving him, to avoid the embarrassing consequences our judicial system and indeed all Guyanese now face.
Surely this matter cannot end here. There has to be a full investigation and the opposition will have to be involved since they have appointees to the Judicial Service Commis-sion. Is there no end to the shenanigans in this country? Will we never be able to hold our heads up in pride for being a Guyanese. When people ask us where we are from, must we always say from South America in shame of saying Guyana; our own underdeveloped Caricom neighbours hold us in contempt.
Since our appeal court has now come into further disrepute, is it not time for us to institute proceedings to leapfrog the Appeal Court and go directly to the CCJ, as is done in the UK, for serious and important matters requiring expeditious hearing?
Yours faithfully,
Tony Vieira
