We need to look at the previous decisions of Chief Justice Chang

Dear Editor,
I would like to reiterate at the expense of being criticized for beating my own drum, that prior to the court decision on the Henry Greene rape allegation, I was the only Guyanese who penned a critical comment on Chief Justice Chang for three decisions he made.
I have done so in several letters to both independent dailies and twice in my columns. In two of those correspondences, I took the position that I would be vocal if Justice Chang should achieve CCJ status (become a judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice). I gave my reason which is repeated among the paragraphs of this letter.
My castigation of him related to three decisions, the most important of which was to assign for hearing the libel suit filed by then President Jagdeo, eleven months, three weeks after Mr. Jagdeo’s affidavit was processed.
It is generally said by Guyanese that this libel case has created a piece of history for itself in the annals of Guyana’s jurisprudence. What is never mentioned is that the libel secured a historical place for another reason – the timing of the hearing.
I contend that not even in the most efficient countries in the world, a libel suit is heard in a year’s time. It does not happen even in places like the US, Canada, Australia, UK, India and the Caricom states.
In all my coverage of this disposition by Justice Chang, I never advanced a reason why he made the judgement of an early trial. The reason is that even if I was to secure help from the world’s greatest genius on the use of the English language, it would be impossible to evade making an allegation of bias against Justice Chang. For this reason I have abstained.
I am eager to submit my analysis of Justice Chang’s action but I world appeal to the C J to assure me that he would not take offence once the language is circumspect, civil and academic. Once the CJ assures me he will allow for the ventilation of my assessment, I will state why that trial reached a judge so early.
In the midst of the torrid controversy over the CJ’s decision in Greene versus the DPP, the nation needs to focus on other rulings by the CJ. I contend that on examination, I find two of his recent judgements unacceptable.
This is my opinion and I don’t have to be a lawyer to reject his pronouncements. It is reported in demerarawaves.com that the CJ is contemplating his resignation. This is one Guyanese who thinks the judiciary would be better served if he leaves and I mean nothing personal.
Let me be pellucid here. I am not disputing the statement made over time by many that Mr. Chang is a very learned judge. I have no reason to think otherwise. For me the criterion of brilliance is not overriding, but independence of office is.
First, the bauxite arbitration. He injuncted the arbitration hearing. It leaves the union without any further recourse. There must be extremely urgent reasons why a case of arbitration should be stopped by the courts.
It is the fundamental right of a trade union to seek arbitration in a situation where it feels aggrieved. The CJ says he is hurt at castigations of his decision by a Minister of Government and an opposition Parliamentarian. But he injuncted an arbitration process that was instituted by a Minister. How does he thinks that Minister feels?
The more debatable situation has to do with his permission given to the AG to search the homes and offices of six executives of the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB). I have repeatedly written that I have no information that would lead me to exonerate the GCB heads from the accusations of wrong-doing.
My preoccupation was the illegality of the IMC and the arrogant arrogation of the Guyana Government to select the composition of the IMC without consultations.
Six weeks after the GCB executives were being investigated for alleged financial irregularities with police visits to the offices of the GCB and police interviews with the leading figures in the GCB, the CJ granted an order to the AG to search these people’s homes and offices.
The request that the CJ should have made (in camera) was to see what the police had in their six weeks of investigations. My opinion is that they had nothing therefore they couldn’t charge. Yet the AG went ahead and asked for searches.
More than a month after the search order was granted, there are still no charges. My contention is that that search order was reckless and the society was even more reckless not to condemn the CJ’s permission.
I have nothing personal against the CJ. My honest feeling, deeply held belief is that he has allowed a judicial inelegance marked by political overtones to characterize his presence in the judiciary and for this reason I think it is best he leaves the bench
Frederick Kissoon