Dear Editor,
Many of your readers will say quite correctly that although I am a rather old man, citizen of Guyana only, living abroad, it is my duty to be informed and keep up with developments at home. I try to do this as much as I can to the extent that some comments to my letters ask me to shut up and let the people unite. However, I see myself as one of the contributors to whatever has developed in present day Guyana, whether good or bad, and I am not about to seek a hiding place and behave as though my activity had nothing to do with it.
In this letter I am really seeking for myself and the public advice from those who feel competent to give it. I shall express a point of view on the issue, but I am really seeking to be instructed by anyone able to justify what appears to be precedent.
The issue came to my attention in a press report recently that the Chief Justice had handed down a ruling in response to a litigant that Mr. Ashni Singh and Mr. Winton Brassington should continue to face a charge in the magistrate’s court brought against them by SOCU (Special Organized Crime Unit). Soon after this ruling came to my attention, I heard also from the media that the SOCU had withdrawn its charges against Singh and Brassington. On the face of it a person introducing a prosecution against another has the right to withdraw that prosecution in good faith. Here, however, we are dealing with public officials at a time when claims about transparency are frequently made. I should like to be reminded whether SOCU at the time of withdrawing the charges had explained its reasons to the court or the public. I feel that the public is entitled to know why charges of misconduct against public officials are withdrawn, and not only withdrawn but discontinued after a ruling of the high court implying that the facts revealed some ground for prosecution. Although SOCU is not a court I argue in my simplicity that in this case it exercised the function of the tribunal with power to overrule a decision of the Chief Justice or the High Court. I hope some legal scholar will enlighten curious citizens about the status and implications of SOCU’s action especially after the High Court had made a ruling.
I had heard about the year 2018 officials of the previous government (PPP) being arrested on charges in connection with Pradoville 2. Even then I had missed the existence of SOCU. I first learned of SOCU’s existence when its legal counsel appeared in magistrate’s court 1 and withdrew charges against His Excellency President Dr. Irfaan Ali and argued that he was doing so to facilitate “smooth government.” He explained that if the charge had not been withdrawn the president could have difficulty entering certain countries like Canada, even on an official visit. I have to add that it was while learning of the withdrawal of the charges against Singh and Brassington that I first became aware that Justice Ms. Claudette Singh had been legal advisor to SOCU at the a time when charges were laid against Singh and Brassington.
I have been saying privately that our high rate of migration has affected many areas of public administration. One result of this wastage is apparently the reality or the excuse that the list of persons of working age competent to fill certain offices gets shorter and shorter. And I do not know from a distance whether all strata and subclasses and social ranks of the population have an equal chance of being chosen.
Yours sincerely,
Eusi Kwayana
