Special Prosecutor Lawrence Harris’ absence at the most recent hearings for the now dismissed Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) proceedings against former Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) officers may have been due to him not being paid for several months, a source has said.
Senior Magistrate Leron Daly, prompted by counsel for the accused, last week dismissed several charges against six former members of the GRDB after Harris failed to make an appearance when the matter was called. It was also mentioned that Harris had failed to attend three hearings prior.
The charges were connected to the alleged failure of the officers to record some $200 million in the entity’s general ledger.
Public Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan had expressed disappointment upon hearing about the development and he had said that he planned to solicit an explanation about why Harris failed to appear. Ramjattan told Stabroek News yesterday that he was yet to receive a report on the matter.
However, a senior public security official with knowledge of the issues told Stabroek News yesterday that it is possible that Harris did not appear because he had not been paid for at least the last four months by the Chambers of the Attorney General (AG).
Minister of Legal Affairs and AG Basil Williams had said last year that special prosecutors had been paid a $2 million retainer fee, and would be paid costs or expenses incurred in prosecuting matters, along with $20,000 per hour for time spent on matters they prosecuted for the State.
The official further said that Harris had raised the issue of non-payment several times to no avail, and had indicated to the AG’s Chambers that he would no longer appear to prosecute the matters if he was not paid.
Stabroek News contacted Harris yesterday in an attempt to verify the allegation, but he would not speak on the matter until he has spoken to is superiors, which he is yet to do.
When asked whether he did not appear because he was not paid by the AG’s Chambers, Harris told this newspaper to check with the Chambers to verify the allegation.
This newspaper contacted Williams yesterday in an attempt to verify whether Harris had indeed been paid, but Williams said that his Chambers is not involved in the operational affairs of SOCU and that he was unable to speak to why Harris did not appear in court.
When Stabroek News tried to verify with Harris the agency which pays him, and the payment arrangements, Harris told this newspaper that he does not know which agency is responsible for making the payments.
Harris’s non-appearance raised questions about the level of care he exercised in the conduct of the case, but if his non-appearance was due to non-payment of fees, the law may be on his side. Rule IX (4) of the Code of Conduct of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap 4:01 permits an attorney-at-law to withdraw his services from a client for a good cause, so long as appropriate notice has been given to his client. Further, there is ample case law supporting the view that failure by a client to pay an attorney-at-law’s fees is good cause to terminate the relationship, and his representation.
This said, whether Harris could withdraw his services is also dependent on the type of agreement or retainer he had with his employer.
