Dear Editor,
I write in response to Attorney-at law, Mr Harmon’s statements to the press.
Firstly I wish to state that these are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of my partners in the firm.
Lawyers represent a variety of people and cases, and should they be defending murderers or men who abuse their spouses it certainly does not mean that they sympathize with the murder or the abuse of females, and no lawyer should be personally attacked on these grounds.
As to the ‘quality’ of lawyer I am, well, I am the same person who joined Mr Hoyte’s team of lawyers in the Esther Pereira election petition and sat in court every day for almost six months; the same person who along with Basil Williams, Roysdale Forde, Emily Dodson and others presented the Veronica Delph election petition and represented Mark Benschop.
Mr Harmon was never around in those days obviously pursuing some other lofty goals, but he was surely not there with us.
Essentially, I enjoyed a close relationship with Mr Hoyte and after he died, I withdrew from political activism because I was dissatisfied with the leadership of the PNCR. Therefore I only intend to make this single response.
I fully appreciate and in fact encourage the response from the public at large. Although clearly unflattering to me, it is their right to express their feelings, their suspicions and frustrations by whatever means at their disposal. In fact, I will always defend their right to do so even if it is directed at me.
I expect lawyers however to deal with the legal issues and not to attempt to denigrate another lawyer, and even as I excuse Mr Harmon’s attack on me, I will not tolerate his attack on other members of my firm nor will I allow anyone other than a member of my firm to dictate which matters I appear in or whom I represent.
Mr Harmon ought to know that the ethics of our profession dictate that our relationship with our colleagues shall be characterized by respect, courtesy and good faith.
With respect to the legal challenge before the court, my recollection is that this question was first raised by Mr Ralph Ramkarran SC. Once raised, unless the question is frivolous, it is compulsory that such an important question be determined by the court to have certainty and finality on the issue.
It is wrong and unfair to have the people of Guyana believe there is a two-term limitation, if in fact there is no such limitation because the amendment was unconstitutional. I insist that the people of Guyana are entitled to better.
Finally, former President Bharrat Jagdeo is not the client, but even if he were the client, what is horrific, is that Mr Harmon, a high-ranking member of the opposition and an attorney-at-law, would wish to deny a citizen of Guyana the most fundamental of rights, the right to access the court to have a judicial determination of a constitutional question which concerns him or her by attacking and attempting to intimidate the lawyers who bring the action.
Yours faithfully,
Shaun O Allicock
