By Faruk Mohamed

A Kaieteur News clipping of an opinion expressed by GBA.

I HAVE noted with disbelief, the recent public statements of the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) and the Guyana Association of Women Lawyers (GAWL).  Instead of offering a critical comment on the atrocities allegedly committed by Mr. Nigel Hughes in the Lusignan massacre murder trial, they both sought not only to defend him by their refusal to merely issue a critical statement, but they proceeded to attack the Attorney General for requesting a comment from their associations.

Well, the GBA and GAWL have spoken and for that I am grateful.  Their now public position has finally removed their masks and all doubts.  The Guyanese public can now see their true faces.  The Attorney-General framed it nicely “... in the war against crime, there are but only two sides. You either stand on the side of the law and the law abiding or you stand on the side of crime and the criminals.” Now that the GBA and GAWL have officially spoken, the nation is now aware on which side of the divide they stand. This has not only cleared the doubts in the minds of many, but has confirmed the suspicions of many.

The GBA claims that the allegations of professional misconduct against Mr. Hughes committed in a court of law are not within their remit even to comment on. I am appalled. The GAWL was even more outrageous. They argue that it is not within their mandate to comment publicly on issues which “are not perceived to concern them.” What a bizarre statement!
The record will show, however, that over the years, both of these organisations have issued a plethora of statements about matters which are “outside their remit” and “which do not concern them.”  Some of these statements were issued while Mr. Hughes was president of the GBA.  I recall statements issued criticising the government on innumerable occasions; they issued statements condemnatory of the police for alleging throwing methylated spirits on the genitals of a teenager; they issued statements condemnatory of Henry Greene, former commissioner of police and a lawyer when the DPP advised that he should be charged with rape; and they issued a statement quite recently calling for local government elections.  I can list another 100 of these statements. None of these statements concern matters which are in the “remit” or the GBA or “perceived to concern” the GAWL. On what basis did they issue these statements?  Are these organisations contaminated by politics and therefore, are only activated to be critical of the government or some person connected to the government?
The truth is that the executive of these two learned organisations have embarrassed themselves and their “honourable” profession. One now wonders how they will ever be able to issue another statement again, on matters which organisations like theirs should really make statements.  Oh what a tangled web we weave!
Significantly, I have looked at the aims and objectives which are contained in the Mission Statement of the GBA. It includes, “to lay down rules regarding the etiquette and practice of the legal profession and to uphold the rule of law”. The GBA’s position therefore, that it is beyond their remit to even comment on Mr. Hughes’s conduct is more than mind boggling.   Sadly, as a result of this saga, the GBA and GAWL are two organisations whose credibility is now severely damaged, perhaps beyond repair.