Selective memory and deliberate omissions

Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter by Mr Vishnu Prashad published on November 4, 2025. His selective memory and deliberate omissions do a disservice to the public discourse. He conveniently ignores the grave dereliction by the then Opposition – while in Government – to confirm Chancellor Singh and Chief Justice Chang, and brushes aside the current, unjustified vilification of the sitting Chief Justice as though these matters are insignificant.
Let me be clear: I did not write to defend the office of the Chief Justice. My purpose was – and remains – to defend the character and integrity of the individual whom Dr Campbell maliciously and baselessly maligned as unfit to serve not only as Chief Justice but even as a Judge of the High Court. Such reckless character assassination cannot go unchallenged.
Yes, the current Chief Justice is my son-in-law. That is an open and well-known fact throughout the legal fraternity, across political parties, and in the civilised Guyanese society at large. My relationship to him does not remove my right – indeed, my duty – to rebut dishonesty and slander. What is telling, however, is that you sought to smear me by attempting to tie my name to the Burnham Government, as if that alone would undermine my credibility. If you were genuinely informed, you would know I served under the Hoyte Administration, not Burnham’s.
Unlike your insinuations, my record stands on merit. Under President Hoyte, I made tangible contributions to the liberalisation of Guyana’s economy and society and to the strengthening of Guyana–US diplomatic relations. Should you require validation, consult the former US Ambassador to Suriname, His Excellency Mr Dennis Hays, or the US State Department. Former US Ambassador Clint Lauderdale can attest to the transformation of relations during that era – from suspicion and isolation to engagement and respect. President Hoyte moved Guyana away from the brink of authoritarian socialism and into a free-market democratic society – conditions you now enjoy, yet appear unwilling to acknowledge.
I therefore wear my service under President Hoyte as a badge of honour. His intellect, integrity, and leadership reshaped this country for the better. If that offends you, so be it.
Your letter attempted to glorify the lineage of the Honourable Justice Rishi Persaud through his late father, Prem Persaud. I do not dispute the distinguished legacy of that gentleman. What I reject is your dishonest omission that the late father of Justice Singh was likewise a highly regarded and accomplished legal practitioner in Region Two. Legal brilliance did not emerge from one family alone. It exists in both and runs in their veins.
For your enlightenment, Justice Rishi Persaud is also related to me and my children. Should he one day be appointed Chief Justice, I would salute that elevation with pride, as he will continue to reflect distinction on the Kissoon family. But your attempt to weaponise his heritage while ignoring the pedigree of others only exposes your bias and intellectual dishonesty.
Most disappointingly, your letter evaded the substantive issues raised by your colleague, Dr Campbell. Rather than confront the real constitutional and ethical concerns he identified, you diverted into an unwarranted, ill-conceived personal attack on Jailall Kissoon. If your goal was to wound, you failed. I remain unmoved.
Next time, I urge you to address issues with facts, fairness, and intellectual integrity rather than resorting to petty personal attacks and half-truths.

Kind regards,
JT Kissoon
Attorney-at-Law