Dear Editor,
April 13, 2021 was a notable day in Guyana’s court sessions. On that day, the Court of Appeal upheld Donald Rodney’s appeal against his conviction for possession of an explosive device in 1982. Needless to say, the length of time almost an age imposed on the appellant as waiting time amounts to an obscenity.
Guyana had become notorious in Caribbean legal practice because its judiciary was headed by two women who because of the nature of their societies had found themselves acting as chief justice and chancellor of judiciary respectively for over 5 years. On at least one occasion when asked to explain the need for the prolonged acting in these positions the Vice President told his weekly press conference that “before there could be permanent appointments to these positions, the track record of the post holders (the chief justice and the chancellor of the judiciary)” had to be examined by the President.
The Guyana Constitution requires agreement by the President and the leader of the opposition for naming the Chief Justice and the Chancellor of the Judiciary. The Chancellor of the Judiciary in the trials following the now famous “no confidence” motion, that brought the coalition government to an end in August 2020 had committed a professional blunder and was recently replaced by the Chief Justice.
It still was not easy for Donald Rodney to win his appeal against his conviction of 40 years ago though he should have on the basis of legal theory as old as the law itself. First, Donald Rodney had to address the purported dismissal of his appeal by a Full Court in 2010, which disbelievingly heard his appeal, though Rodney had signed no papers and had no knowledge of an appeal to it (i.e. the Full Court).
The Court of Appeal also ruled that the Full Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal in Rodney’s case, much less dismiss it. Some of the trials and prosecutions deemed to be political have resulted in severe abuse of the Common Law in which it has always been clear that “possession” means owning with the knowledge of the possessor (person accused).
This comment is being written because in her summing up of the proceedings, the Chancellor of the judiciary referred to the testimony in the appeal trial here referred to and quoted the DPP as saying, “there was nothing before the magistrate to justify the conviction of Donald Rodney”. The Chancellor added “it is a pity that this concession was not made much earlier.” The episode of this case includes many abuses of the law.
Yours truly,
Eusi Kwayana
