Dear Editor,
I have watched the occasional ‘odd’ decision by the CCJ and heard whispers of corruption but never saw any evidence (other than illogical decisions) of corruption; today, however, an email has surfaced where one judge, Justice Jamadar stated that the President of the CCJ pressured him and others into a position contrary to their own, Jamadar said “Two relate to the core function of judicial decision-making and impact the rule of law and the due administration of justice—seen through the lenses of judicial independence, impartiality, and integrity… (ii) the Mohamed vs MOHA, AG, and Magistrate extradition matter and what I experienced as an attempt to influence the opinions of colleagues that differed from yours in an authoritative manner.”
Given the importance of Mohamed vs MOHA, AG and Magistrate to Guyana, Justice Jamadar must now publicly state where he differs from the judgement delivered. Justice Jamadar has introduced the discussion of corruption at the CCJ and should know that lawyers for Mohamed were expressing great confidence of a favorable decision for their client in the high court corridors along with thinly veiled references to bribery and corruption of panel members of the CCJ; This places every Justice who had an opinion contrary to the final decision under a cloud of suspicion, indeed, the entire court and system has been polluted following its brush with the Mohamed’s money.
In Guyana, the vast wealth of the Mohamed family has been cited in numerous instances of corruption including by Detective Sargent Bascomb in the murder investigation of Ricardo ‘paper shorts’ Fagundes and the ‘explosion of fuel boat ‘Canada Club’ which left three dead bodies listed as casualties. Guyanese with knowledge were alarmed at the time asked for by the CCJ to deliver what anyone could see would be a straight forward decision (and it was stunningly simple as delivered) and many were worried that members of the CCJ panel could be bought outright, Jamadar’s outrage as expressed in his email does not engender faith, rather, quite the opposite.
Justice Jamadar must come forward, show clean hands and work with all stakeholders towards a resolution of the allegations made in his email, ‘he who alleges, must prove’ the future of the court rests on its integrity and how it deals with this allegation of misconduct going forward. Guyanese faith in the judiciary is always on thin ice given the level of incongruity we see daily, our justice is not blind, she is wealthy, the CCJ has historically been the bastion of justice for Guyanese and it would seem the barbarians have infiltrated the walls. A full and transparent process of cleaning must begin as a matter of great urgency.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Robin Singh