Judiciary, let us not wait for a long time

Dear Editor,
I have read with keen interest all the electronic versions of the dailies on the 2020 election fiasco, including your widely read newspaper, Guyana Times.
I note that at least (4) four Secretariat officials have been charged and are to face their trials soon. As a former lawyer who had practiced in Georgetown up to 2014 (I returned to Canada then), I wish to indicate to you, Editor, that two issues may arise that the State may face over 2021 and/or 2022, and I am indeed concerned, as all Guyanese ought to be.
Firstly, my understanding from my readings is that the facts show that subsequent to their arrests, some had exercised their rights to Counsel. This means to me that this ought to be seen as a confirmation of them exercising their freedoms to choose whether to make any statement or not. The fact that such a choice was made to the investigating ranks, I feel that those wishes should always be respected by the police: Canadian case of R v Hebert (decided on June 21, 1990) where seven (7) Judges looked thoroughly at the scope and nature of the right to remain silent.
Guyana has some similar leading authorities for the proposition that State servants aren’t obliged to protect the suspect against making a statement and it is open for them to use legitimate means of persuasion to encourage him or her to do so. The State is, however, obliged to allow him or her to make an informed choice about whether or not he or she will speak to the authorities. Justice Lamer in Hebert had felt that Canadian cops must respect the choice of any accused who does not wish to speak to them.
From my reading of the facts surrounding the several accused detentions, it seems that where the law is concerned, there is going to be keen interest paid by every single Guyanese, particularly those who voted, how the courts deal with each of the matters during trials.
If we were to take the premise that these courts’ Magistrates live in an ideal world and they can dispense justice fairly, it would be left squarely on the prosecutor to make his case against the accused to the standard required based on the evidence against each accused. And surely there should not arise any extraneous issue of any self-incriminating statement at the police station to be tendered. I sure hope that GECOM’s Chairperson is called as a witness.
I turn to the second issue of delay. I take note that there was a five months’ delay that our nation’s peoples waited in our “casas” and in hushed breaths to get the results declared and a winner sworn in by the Chancellor, which was caused due to subversion of several actors at GECOM.
Please, let us not wait for a long time. These judicial proceedings in the criminal courts must be decided upon and rendered swiftly in each of the accused cases.
And if there are any delays faced, these criminal courts must consider how much of any delay is, or isn’t the fault of the State, as a sensible framework within which their judicial goals must exist. The Jordan case and recently R v Thanabalasingham on July 17, 2020, addressed doctrinal and practical problems which contributed to a culture of delay and complacency within the judicial system and which is quite similar to what obtained in Guyana, as I witnessed firsthand, up to 2014.
In ending, I ask these judicial officers to give us, the silent Guyanese electorate, their verdicts ASAP.

Sincerely,
M Shabeer Zafar
Barrister, Solicitor
Notary