Dear Editor,
It is now public knowledge that Mr James Patterson lied to ‘The People’ of this country when he was sworn in by President of Guyana, David Granger. I used the word “lied” instead of euphemistic terms such as a “lapse” on his part or an “oversight” when preparing his curriculum vitae. Patterson lied!
Many believe this is a calculated act on the octogenarian’s part to deceive; and deception of this nature is called perjury, which is a reprehensible act under any circumstance.
Let us review the meaning of the word “perjury” or to “perjure oneself”. The meaning is “the offense of wilfully telling an untruth, or making a misrepresentation while under oath.” Pay careful attention to the words used here: “wilfully” and “under oath.” This is strong, straightforward, unambiguous language. Mr Patterson wilfully gave us untruths while under oath.
Being under oath, one would be led to believe that he is speaking “the truth, and only the truth.” Hear me well: this gentleman swore to uphold the law; at one time he was the “guardian of the law.” This same gentleman, in his sworn deposition, lied unashamedly before this whole nation that he was the Chief Justice of Grenada, when he was not. This is what I would say once again is a serious offence.
From what I know of the law and the specifics, when dealing with matters of perjury, a person found culpable is required to do some jail time. How could we gloss over such a serious offence? Should we let this matter slide, or should we punish Mr Patterson? I believe he ought to be punished for his ‘lies’, and that punishment should be to remove him forthwith!
We would not want to incarcerate an old man and have him spend the rest of his twilight years in jail. However, Justice Patterson should be punished. He should just do the honourable thing and resign from the post of GECOM Chair. Or the President should hurriedly remove him.
Even if we would want to overlook this breach or lapse in his memory, we cannot disregard the fact that he is getting on in years and might be an even greater problem when the situation arises where he has to make important decisions in our already fractious and violent political system. Would he be able to do this? My answer is a resounding no!
We cannot rely on a man whose mental capacity is on the wane to hold such a high office. Let us not embarrass the gentleman any further, but simply ask him to vacate the post and choose one from the lists provided.
The critical issue here is: we cannot allow this man to function in this capacity, seeing he has lied to us. He cannot be trusted to hold such an impartial position as an elections commission chairman.
Respectfully,
Neil Adams
