Dear Editor,
I have noted that in an affidavit to secure injunctive relief against allegations made by Johnny Welshman, Raphael Trotman, Speaker of the National Assembly, politician and attorney-at-law, has sworn to certain matters claiming that the allegations made against him are politically inspired. I also notice that he has made public statements about events related to the said allegations claiming much the same thing.
I also note that the Stabroek News has written their story cleverly in a way that supports the claims being made by Trotman, to wit, that I am involved in some mysterious political plot to drag Trotman down. Their story highlights that I am the sister of Education Minister, Priya Manickchand and that I was a former PPP Gecom commissioner, all facts, but positioned in such a way to lend credence to the claims made that this is a political plot.
I cannot fail to notice either, that the propagandists of the AFC have gone to work on social media carrying and peddling the story of my being in some way involved in a political plot and all sorts of their usual nastiness. I have seen Trotman being very generous with offering comments on all and sundry but he has failed to correct any of these propagandists so one can only fairly assume they are acting on his behalf and according to his instruction. I am open to being proven wrong by Raphael publicly correcting his compatriots on all of their misinformation. In fact, I plead with him to so do, so that this sense of crushing disappointment in him that I have could be lifted and I could actually see him as the leader he holds himself out to be.
Editor, please allow me to state clearly for the benefit of the persons who have been contacting me and who are interested in the facts of this matter as far as my involvement is concerned.
I was never retained by Johnny Welshman in the ongoing matter with allegations against Raphael Trotman. I am not retained by him and I do not represent Mr Welshman.
Mr Welshman tried making contact with me on Friday 19th September, 2014 in the afternoon by visiting my chambers. I was out of chambers at the time he visited. I subsequently returned a telephone call to Welshman, where he disclosed certain information to me. At the time Mr Welshman spoke with me on Friday, 19th September, 2014, he told me he had made a report at the CID. I never confirmed whether he made a report but I believed it to be true then. And I believed then, that given that a report was made, it would probably become a public matter soon.
I told Johnny Welshman that the proper attorney-at-law to address complaints of a criminal nature is the DPP and he should seek counsel with the Chambers of the DPP.
Based on certain information offered by Mr Welshman, I offered to speak with Raphael Trotman to mediate between the parties about if a likely “settlement” could have been met. I was still not retained by Welshman. However, if having spoken to Raphael Trotman, I felt a settlement could be reached, then I would have considered facilitating that settlement. I thought it best to have Raphael deal with this matter privately because he has young daughters and I know allegations like the ones being made, can be hurtful to anyone, and particularly young, innocent girls. Further, given what Welshman told me and the manner in which he told me same, I felt he too would best be served by the route he (Welshman) was proposing, that being a settlement.
I sent Raphael SMS messages regarding Johnny Welshman and he subsequently called me later that night. Raphael and I had one telephone conversation regarding this entire matter. Based on that telephone conversation, I formed the opinion that there was no way I could have assisted further and recused myself from the entire matter. This information was communicated to Johnny Welshman via telephone. I have not met Johnny Welshman in person to date, save and except when he consulted with me at the Children’s Legal Aid Clinic a few years ago. In fact, I can only assume that Welshman sought me out because the Children’s Legal Aid Clinic had represented him.
If the media or anyone says that I gave Raphael a heads up regarding this matter, that would be accurate. That heads up was in pursuit of what Welshman said he wanted and it may also have allowed Trotman to disclose this information to his family, to prepare them for the serious allegations which were about to hit the media, given that Welshman claimed reports had already been made at other agencies including the police.
I have chosen not to disclose the content of conversations I had with Johnny Welshman or with Raphael Trotman. Raphael is a colleague of mine and I will still extend him that courtesy, whilst Mr Welshman’s conversation, I believe, is privileged. I would have no problems, however, with Raphael disclosing in full the conversation we had, which to date he has failed to do, even in his affidavit for injunctive relief.
Editor, please let me state clearly. The words, “I am not retained,” which is what I said to the reporters, means that there is no contract between me and Johnny Welshman for me to provide legal services to him.
“I do not represent Johnny Welshman,” which is what I said to the reporters as far as my record indicates, is in the present tense. At the time I spoke with Gordon Mosley and the Stabroek News reporter (the only two reporters I gave statements to) which was at approximately 11.30 am on Sunday, 21st September, 2014, I had completely recused myself from the matter because, as stated earlier, I would have only gone forward and possibly become the attorney-at-law for Welshman if a settlement was being considered by both parties. As I could not provide further assistance in the matter, which I determined during and after the telephone conversation with Mr Trotman, I had already recused myself from the matter when I spoke to the reporters and so there was nothing incorrect in that statement.
Further, let me state clearly, I never denied speaking to or contacting Raphael as is the impression created by the SN. I just gave as a response “no further comment” to the question posed by the Stabroek News reporter as to whether I had made contact with Raphael Trotman. It baffles me that “no further comment” could be considered as a denial. Is that media-speak with which I am unfamiliar or is this just the Stabroek News, in their haste to defend Raphael being creative.
Now, whatever may have been Trotman’s motive for disclosing my text to him, that disclosure only supports what I have said in relation to my involvement in this matter. It clearly shows:
- that I made contact with him;
- that I indicated that I could only be useful to Johnny Welshman regarding his allegation if a settlement could be reached and, if not, that I would not be in the matter further; and
- that I had, and still do have, a deep and abiding concern for the impact of the revelations on his family, particularly his young daughters.
As for my opinion on the matter: If the allegation is false, then Welshman is one sick person and deserves urgent medical attention. But, if Welshman is telling the truth or even parts of the truth, doesn’t he deserve the opportunity to be heard fairly without Mr Trotman’s interference and might and the interference of his friends? Give the justice system an opportunity to work. If it does, Trotman would have his chance to defend himself fully with all the might and considerable resources he enjoys. He should stop trying to influence the system by trying to frighten lawyers who may listen to, hear and be willing to mediate for a complainant. He should stop trying to deflect from the allegation by making up that my involvement was political. He should stop trying to take the spotlight off of himself by trying to throw me under the bus and making me the issue. He should not deflect from the allegations. Defend them. Surely there is more in his defence than hanging onto and misusing my surname.
Frankly, for myself, now that I have seen Mr Trotman’s affidavit and the deliberate attempts by his social media and other buddies to sully me, I am left with all sorts of questions in my head.
I would be happy to take a lie detector test as to whether my involvement in this matter was in any way sinister and/or meant to distract from the AFC’s no confidence motion and/or to bring down the Speaker of the House or the AFC and/or in any way politically motivated, inspired, directed or driven if Raphael is also going to take a lie detector test to clear, what he insists is, his good name.
As I do not believe I can add any more to this that would help anyone interested in the truth as far as my involvement is concerned, this will be my last statement on the matter.
Yours faithfully,
Jaya Manickchand
Attorney-at-Law
Editor’s note
With respect to Ms Manickchand’s accusation that Stabroek News created the impression that her response of “no further comment” constituted a denial that she had made contact with Raphael Trotman, we refer to what our report of September 22 actually said, viz: “Asked whether she approached Trotman about the allegations as claimed by Welshman, Manickchand said she “had no further comment.”