I notice Lallbachan Christopher Ram has called for the disbarment of my sister Jaya Manickchand for a Facebook post she made.  Kaieteur News also, in an editorial lacking in depth and proper analysis, hallmarks of good editorials, was critical of what they represent to be her comments. Both Ram and Kaieteur News were grossly dishonest in presenting only part of what Jaya said and that is simply reprehensible.
To put the matter in context, three young men were shot by the Police and killed.

The Guyana Police says in a public official statement, that these men are all on bail for various gun crimes and has produced guns and ammunition and wigs (which were carried as photographs in the newspapers and would have helped to inform views). The police further said that the men were going to use those guns and bullets in a planned robbery. The police said they that they, the police, were under attack from the men who refused to surrender and in order to defend themselves and protect the victim of the planned robbery, they shot the men.

Some newspapers have reported that eyewitnesses, some of who are relatives of the men, have said that the men are good young men, who do not get into anyone’s way and that they were merely going about their business that night, were not resisting arrest but were simply put to lie down and executed by the police. They say this was police brutality and extra judicial killings.

There are some who choose to believe the eyewitness accounts and indeed they have that freedom, and will believe that the men were executed. They could, if they were malicious and/or have other ill motives, twist Jaya’s comments to mean that all persons suspected of crime should be killed by the police thus ignoring the presumption of innocence upon which our jurisprudence is based. This is what Lallbachan Christopher Ram and the editorial of the Kaieteur News has done.

Those, on the other hand, who believe the police’s accounts, and indeed they too have that freedom, would find it easy to defend the police’s actions. The police have the human, fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed right, and duty, to defend themselves and others by using reasonable force (and this would include lethal force). If, as the police said, these men were in the process of committing a robbery, the police were duty bound to stop that. If, in the process of stopping that, they came under fire from the men, then they are constitutionally entitled to return fire. The Kaieteur News Editorial vapidly and in a wanting analysis failed to make this point.

Clearly, Jaya believed the Police’s version of the story and is entitled to hold the view that she held. Why do I say it is clear she held this view? On the same issue, in the much publicised on-going conversations, here is what she publicly said “…Ok…., for argument's sake. If someone enters your home with a gun pointing to you and you also have a gun, close enough to access, what will you do? think about it and see if you will hold their hand and take them to the police station for the report to be taken for them to be taken to court... or worse, think if a bandit opens fire on your family and you have the opportunity to call the police or access your fire arm… defend yourself and family, what will you do?...”

I find it amazing that Ram and his cohorts believe they have a right to believe one side of the account, and indeed they do have that right, but would deny the right of another to believe the other account of the story.  Please note that Ram and the writer of the Kaieteur News editorial who are saying that she is flouting the rule of law and is celebrating extra judicial activity have baptised themselves with the right to believe one version of accounts, the version that says the men were innocently executed. Yet they have want to wrest from Jaya the right  to form her own and differing view.  This is the democracy they would foist on us if they had that chance.

To add more context to the facebook post and to expose Ram’s dishonesty and the unbalanced nature of the Kaieteur News editorial, on the same issue Jaya publicly said in the SAME on-going conversations, the following:

“I am AGAINST extra judicial killings ….. I am FOR any POLICE OR CITIZEN defending themselves from bandits and murderers….it matters not what race, religion and creed the bandits are from...”

“..…I am not going to say ever that I condone all actions by the police because I do not. I will say however, The Police has EVERY DUTY and RIGHT to defend themselves and to protect innocent citizens... look, I can go on here but you people are bent on seeing this one way so you have expressed your views and I have expressed mine....”

In the context of the above, and more that was published, when she said she was glad that the men were dead, it is clear that she believes that the police were under attack and, in the shoot-out, the men were killed. If this is what happened, and what is important, is that she believed so when she made those statements and she is entitled to believe whichever account she chooses, this would not be a denial of anyone’s rights and would not in any way breach that sacred presumption of innocence rule. The constitution would have allowed the action taken by the police.

It is interesting to note that Jaya was not the only lawyer commenting on that issue who held these views that showed a belief in the police’s version of the story. Yet she was the only lawyer singled out as a subject of Ram’s vitriol and in his call for disbarment and in the Kaieteur News Editorial.

I hope the picture is becoming clear to all. Ram and his friends call for the removal of Geetanjali Singh, wife of Ashni Singh. They call for the removal of Marcia Nadir, daughter of Manzoor Nadir. They now call for the disbarment of Jaya Manickchand, sister of Priya Manickchand.  They are, however, conspicuously silent on the conflict of interest to which Hughes has confessed. They are silent on the matter where a Court of competent jurisdiction has determined that there was an improper relationship enjoyed between a defence lawyer and the foreman of the jury in the trial for the Lusignan Massacre. No call for disbarment there!

This pattern of targeting the family members of persons who have exercised their constitutional right to affiliate with a political party, to wit, the PPP/C, and to believe in and serve the people of Guyana through the PPP/C, is disgusting and must be rejected.