Walter Rodney Debates - Guyana Parliament - August 04, 2016

Walter Rodney Report is the focus of Debates in the Guyana Parliament on August 04, 2016. This should be an interesting debate).

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON THE DEATH IN AN EXPLOSION OF THE LATE DR. WALTER RODNEY <http://www.parliament.gov.gy/…/5851-report_of_the_commissio…> 
Background Information <http://selwynpieters.blogspot.ca/…/walter-rodney-commission…>

Ms Gail Teixeira, M.P. to move the following motion:WHEREAS the Report on “The Commission of Inquiry Appointed To Enquire and Report On the Circumstances Surrounding The Death in An Explosion Of the Late Dr. Walter Rodney On Thirteenth Day Of June, One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty at Georgetown” was handed over to the Government of Guyana on February 10, 2016;
AND WHEREAS the Government laid Volume 1 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry in the National Assembly on May 12, 2016;
AND WHEREAS the Commission in its Report presented its findings including “Critical Findings and Summary on Gregory Smith” and 11 significant recommendations,
BE IT RESOLVED:
That this National Assembly adopts the Report and its findings;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the National Assembly calls on the Government to take measures to implement the recommendations therein in order to ensure that the democratic architecture of the state is preserved and strengthened.
(Notice Paper No. 52 (M41 Opp. 8) published on 2016-05-31)

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Rebuttal to the Claim of Pre-mature termination of the Commission

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Created July 27, 2015

The Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry has three Commissioners: Sir. Richard L. Cheltenham, K.A., Q.C., Ph.D – Chairman (Barbados); Mrs. Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, Q.C. (Jamaica) and Mr. Seenath Jairam, S.C. (Trinidad).

The Commission’s mandate established by its terms of reference is:-
(i) To examine the facts and circumstances immediately prior, at the time of, and subsequent to, the death of Dr. Walter Rodney in order to determine, as far as possible, who or what was responsible for the explosion resulting in the death of Dr. Walter Rodney;
(ii) To inquire into the cause of the explosion in which Dr. Walter Rodney died, whether it was an act of terrorism, and if so, who were the perpetrators;
(iii) To specifically examine the role, if any, which the late Gregory Smith, Sergeant of the Guyana Defence Force, played in the death of Dr. Walter Rodney and if so, to inquire into who may have counselled, procured, aided and or abetted him to do so, including facilitating his departure from Guyana after Dr. Walter Rodney’s death;
(iv) To examine and report on the actions and activities of the State, such as, the Guyana Police Force, the Guyana Defence Force, the Guyana National Service, the Guyana People’s Militia and those who were in command and superintendence of these agencies, to determine whether they were tasked with the surveillance of and the carrying out of actions, and whether they did execute those tasks and carried out those actions against the Political Opposition, for the period 1st January, 1978 to 31st December, 1980;
(v) To examine, review and report on earlier investigations and enquiries done on and into the death of Dr. Walter Rodney.

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Arguments of Various Counsel

Basil Williams and Selwyn A. Pieters, Written Submissions of the People's National Congress, July 23, 2015
Selwyn A. Pieters and Brian M. Clarke, Written submissions of the Guyana Trades Union Congress, July 24, 2015
Andrew Pilgrim, Q.C., Closing argument of the Immediate family, July 24, 2015
Keith Scotland, Closing Argument of Donald Rodney, July 24, 2015

Mr. Pieters: Thank you very much. Selwyn Pieters for the People’s National Congress [PNC]. By way of Extraordinary Gazette dated 8th July, 2015, under the signature of Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Harmon, Minister of State, the life of the Commission was extended for the final time to 30th November, 2015. That is the date specified by the President, by which the Commission shall render its report, findings and recommendations to the President within that specified period.
It is our submission that the Commission, whose life has been extended to 30th November, has not been terminated prematurely.

Mr. Chairman, the position that we take is that nothing precludes written hearing for those issues to which the Salmon letter pertain. It is our position and the other parties may disagree, but certainly questions can be submitted in writing. The persons to whom the information is sought can submit affidavit evidence and the parties can be given an opportunity to file additional written submissions or supplementary written submissions - if that is necessary. Mr. Chairman, for that proposition I relied on a case called Vale v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada [1998] O.J. No. 6466, 40 O.R. (3d) 347, per Cullity J.
Mr. Chairman: Just spell it for the purposes of the records.
Mr. Pieters: V-a-l-e vs S-u-n-l-i-f-e A-s-s-u-r-a-n-c-e Company of Canada. That was a reported decision, 1988, for the OR which is “Ontario Reports”, the third edition, 347. Mr. Chairman, my friend, Mr. Pilgrim, and rightfully so, spoke about the audi alteram partem rule  and certainly we do not disagree that in administrative proceedings nemo judex in causa sua) and other audi alteram partem exist and certainly in the case of …
Mr. Chairman: I think for the purposes of the listening public, you should try to avoid the Latin tides and if you use them, you should explain what they mean.
Mr. Pieters: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The two terms speak to issues of fairness and issues of impartiality, so they speak to those two concepts. In a case called Marks vs Minister of Home Affairs, 35 West Indian Report, at page 134, that decision cited a case called Kanda vs the Government of Malaya, 1962 AC322, in which Lord Denning, given the judgment of the Privy Council said this:

“The rule against bias is one thing.  The right to be heard is another.  Those two rules are the essential characteristics of what is often called natural justice.  They are the twin pillars supporting it.  The Romans put them in the two maxims: nemo judex in causa sua: and audi alterem partem.  They have recently been put in the two words, impartiality and fairness.  But they are separate concepts and are governed by separate considerations...   If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him.  He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them...   the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of the other.”

Mr. Chairman, I say that because the fact is, the questions and evidence that Robert Corbin, for example, was required to answer have been crystallised since November, 2014, when Lieutenant Sydney James testified. We say that no plausible explanation has been offered on why a Salmon letter was not issued to him shortly thereafter. His name was serialised in the media by the consultant of the Commission, Shaun Michael Samaroo in an article called “Corbin delivered guns to the House of Israel” in the Guyana Chronicle on 3rd June, 2014. We understand the concerns that Mr. Pilgrim has raised in respect to the three business days’ notice, to which these Salmon letters were issued, but we say that no explanation has been given to us as to why the Salmon letter would not have been issued to Robert Corbin, shortly after Lieutenant Colonel James testified in November, 2014.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you will allow me to interrupt you just to say that, the usual practice in commissions is that, towards the end, one sends out their Salmon letters, otherwise the same person may have to get three or four, so one really determines who the persons are that merit Salmon letters when the evidence is really at an end. That would have been premature to send out one at that point. It is really not in keeping with the standard practice, but I have taken note of what you said. Please proceed.
Mr. Pieters: In respect to Norman Mclean and “Skip” Roberts, we understand that “Skip” Roberts was here for a certain period and his evidence was not taken. We also understand as well that the evidence for “Skip” Roberts would have been crystallized in January, 2015, and the same applies in respect to him that there is no explanation as to why he was not issued his Salmon letter previously. So, the PNC’s position, therefore, is that enough time has been allocated to the Commission to wrap up its proceedings, including obtaining evidence from witnesses issued Salmon letters without personal appearance. Such witnesses, as I indicated before in my submissions, can give their evidence by way of affidavit and counsel can submit written questions to those witnesses and supplementary written submissions, arising out of any evidence that becomes available, can be made. There is therefore no breach of legitimate expectation, as Mr. Pilgrim submits and no breach of natural justice of the Rodney’s family are asserted. Therefore, we submit that any request for petition to the President should be disallowed, since, indeed, one has until 30th November, 2015, to complete their mandate. Those would be my respectful submissions.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much, Sir. I regard your suggestion with respect to responses, by way of affidavit from those who have not yet testified, as worthy of serious consideration by the Commission. It is a question to some extent of resources as well, but it is certainly not an idea not worthy of serious considerations, so thanks very much for your submissions, Sir.

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Propaganda Press of Guyana Chronicle

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on March 17, 2015

On January 07, 2015, I wrote to the Secretariat of the Walter Rodney Commission stating as follows:

Thank you for your correspondence in respect to the proposed resumption of the Commission which you advised may resume sitting on January 26, 2015. On November 07, 2014, that was the final day of the last round of hearings, Chairman Sir. Richard L. Cheltenham closed the hearing with this pronouncement “We will issue a notice well in advance as to when next we will be meeting, but the days and months ahead might be uncertain. Even though we have agreed on a date, we will let you know closer to the time because we may have to change depending on what is happening on the ground.” An uncertainty or more has arisen. Fundamentally, Parliament has been prorogued under Article 70 (1) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Chapter 1:01. The President in his New Years message has announced that he will be calling elections within the first quarter of 2015. It appears premature to propose any schedule until the issues of state as mentioned above are settled. That is my respectful view having regard to the circumstances and Mr. Basil Williams email below that speaks to the election campaigning that is occurring in Guyana with the political parties.

No formal response was received from the Commission as is the usual pattern of behavior when counsel send correspondence to the Commission Secretariat.

The Commission resumes its public hearings from March 23, 2015 to March 27, 2015. In the leadup to the resumption of the Commission the propaganda continues. On March 16, 2015, I wrote the following in response to an article in Guyana Chronicle:

On another note, I applaud freedom of the press and "responsible journalism". However, the propaganda in the Guyana Chronicle leaves much to be desired and does politicized the Commission in an unacceptable way. Today's online publication in its headline section alone illustrates the point: 

"Our nation stands perplexed and puzzled that Opposition Leader, Brigadier David Granger, adamantly refuses to participate in this process. One would expect, not only as a former top leader of the Guyana Defense Force (GDF), but also given his current leadership role in our nation, that Brigadier Granger would want to solve the Dr Rodney cold case and see the ghost of the past put to rest." RODNEY’S DEATH: AN ENIGMA BEING ANSWERED Special Report on the Rodney Commission of Inquiry by Shaun Michael Samaroo : Rohee testifies to Commission of X13  <http://guyanachronicle.com/rodneys-death-an-enigma-being-answered-special-report-on-the-rodney-commission-of-inquiry-by-shaun-michael-samaroo-rohee-testifies-to-commission-of-x13/> retrieved on 2015-03-16 

The Commission has yet to reach witnesses Lincoln Lewis, Cecil Skip Roberts, Norman McLean, Rupert Roopnarine. This process, unless Salmon Letters, were issued, is voluntary. So it is unclear why the taxpayer funded papers is carrying the line that Granger "adamantly refuses to participate in this process." In a meaningful way Granger is present in through his counsel Basil Williams. 

"But the Opposition Leader refuses to acknowledge the Commission’s integrity, and even said that if his coalition wins the May 11 national elections, he would terminate the Commission’s work." It was repeated to the Commission more than once that a Presidential Commission survives irrespective of who is the President of the Republic of Guyana. How then does the Guyana Chronicle get away with the irresponsibility of stating that the Commission folds if a new government assumes power? 

"The Commission vindicates the role of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), and is writing the admirable history of this political party in the making of modern Guyana." The Commission has made no findings and has written nothing in respect to the WPA or any other political party. 

"The Opposition uses the excuse that the Government is using the Commission as political currency, to opt out of facing the evidence the Commission unearths." As a Canadian based lawyer of Guyanese origin reading this said view that the Commission is being used as "political currency", the process of examination, cross-examination, re-examination and other built in mechanism such as impartiality, integrity and other tennets of the quasi-judicial system makes that difficult, in the hearing process. [For a discussion on challenges in the hearing process and the conduct of the Commission of Inquiry, please see, previous blog postings: A Revisiting of the Issue of Partiality or Impartiality of the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry, Oct 22, 2014; Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Gerald "Gerry" Gouveia evidence - Does a Reasonable apprehension of bias exist?, June 26, 2014; and Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - The Battle for Contemporaneous Documents June 13, 2014]

[......]. 

The witnesses up to the final moment of the Commission's hearing remains to be seen. However, purported blackmail of potential and/or prospective witnesses through unfounded and untested allegations splashed across the national newspapers are unhelpful. 

In Canada, Leon Mugesera faced the music for his propaganda and speeches in the lead up to a genocide. Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 SCR 100, 2005 SCC 40 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1l249> retrieved on 2015-03-16
I pull no punches in say[ing] that given the current situational context in Guyana such publications in the face of an election campaign is not only unhelpful but disgraceful.

See also, PPP calls for Granger, Harmon to appear before Rodney CoI –to account for missing army weapons <http://guyanachronicle.com/ppp-calls-for-granger-harmon-to-appear-before-rodney-coi-to-account-for-missing-army-weapons/>  retrieved on 2015-03-16

Guyana Times, Last Chance <http://www.guyanatimesgy.com/2015/03/05/last-chance/>  retrieved on 2015-03-16

Youtube <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TrTAt1u_dY> Post Cabinet press briefing by HPS Dr Roger Luncheon 4th March, 2015 starts at 20:39 retrieved on 2015-03-16

GINA <http://www.gina.gov.gy/home/index.php/home/all-news/item/1968-rodney-s-death-hps-queries-why-surviving-pnc-personalities-of-that-era-have-not-yet-volunteered-to-testify-before-coi> Rodney’s death… HPS queries why surviving PNC personalities of that era have not yet volunteered to testify before COI  retrieved on 2015-03-16

********
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20  and Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (2015 - decision reserved); Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General) 2014 CarswellOnt 10955, 2014 ONCA 578, 121 O.R. (3d) 1, 376 D.L.R. (4th) 258 (CA) and most recently R. v. Steele (2015) ONCA 169 (Ont. C.A.);  the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn has provided representation to persons charged with various criminal offenses including Drugs: Selling and Possessing, Shoplifting, Serious Offences of Violence: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Robbery, Gun Offences, sexual assault, robbery, theft, extortion, HIV/AIDS litigation; fraud, break & enter, attempted murder, murder, regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, professional disciplinary offences, and conspiracy offences.

Selwyn has also been involved in drugs, guns and gang trials including "Project Green Apple", "Project XXX" and "Project Kryptic", "Project Corral" which are some of Canada's largest Criminal Organization prosecutions. Selwyn is currently counsel for an accused in "Project Feline" and Project Revival" drug sting operations. In Project Corral, Selwyn's advocacy resulted in the "gang expert" evidence being discredited and the Criminal Organization charges against his client and others being tossed out by the Court: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)

Selwyn recently obtained an extraordinary remedy of costs agains the Crown for failure to provide disclosure of police officer memo book notes in R. v. W.(J.), [2013] O.J. No. 2284, 2013 CarswellOnt 6322, 2013 ONCJ 270 (Ont. CJ.).

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695(Ont. C.A.).

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn was co-counsel in the world's first-ever sexual HIV transmission murder trial of Johnson Aziga in Hamilton, Ontario. See, for example, R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39222 (ON S.C.); R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 29780 (ON S.C.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has acted in exclusion cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: See, Song Dae Ri (Re) 2003 CarswellNat 4527; (2004) 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 203; Liang (Re) 2002 CarswellNat 4719; 33 Imm. L.R. (3d) 251.

Selwyn has appeared in  Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Selwyn is currently co-counsel with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

Courtney Crum-Ewing - his murder, the 2015 elections and implications for a democratic state

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on Friday, March 13, 2015
Updated August 09, 2015

On March 10, 2015, whilst on the political husting at Third Avenue, Diamond Housing Scheme, East Bank Demerara (EBD) in the leadup to the May 11, 2015 National and Regional elections in the Republic of Guyana, the political assassination of a known opposition activist Courtney Crum-Ewing occurred. Symbolic was his yellow AFC T-Shirt in which he was attired and his bullhorn or loudspeaker that lay nearby. At first blush, I posited that the terror campaign by those bent on holding on to power at any cost has began to make Guyana ungovernable.

Mr. Crum-Ewing, whilst advocating for people to come out to vote was murdered. Shot down in cold blood by one or more persons bent on silencing him for his brave, fervent and strident advocacy against a state of the running of the affairs of Guyana by the current government that is rotten to the core.

Mr. Crum-Ewing launched a vocal and visible one-man protest outside of the Chambers of Guyana's Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, the Hon. Mohabir Anil Nandlall MP. His protest was primarily driven by a chilling telephone conversation that Mr. Nandlall had with a journalist that in any interpretation was highly inappropriate and some say borders on the realm of criminality: See, Mr. Nandlall's full speech, via Stabroeknews' Youtube page



Mr. Crum-Ewing during the time that he was protesting outside of the Chambers of the Ministry of the Attorney General was arrested, faced criminal charges - part of which stemmed from the use of a public washroom at the said chambers. Mr. Crum-Ewing had his source of income in the form of his mini-bus (maxi-taxi) destroyed. He was subjected to extra-ordinary police surveillance. He was subjected to various acts of imtimidation and harassment. All of which were done in the public's eye outside of the offices of Guyana's Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, the Hon. Mohabir Anil Nandlall MP. Mr. Crum-Ewing wrote the following in a January 11, 2015 facebook message:

I awake this morning to the singing of beautiful birds outside my Window. Praise be to God. I'm burning inside, burning because it's the 3rd month of my protest action and sadly it seems hardly anyone realizes or cares that this kind of sacrifice bares a scar. Transportation/ fuel commute 25 miles daily, meals/ refreshments, supplements, lost earnings/ family time, lost friends, government harassment and victimization, vandalism to the tune of approximately $500,000 GYD, my inability to travel to the USA to visit my daughters for the holidays, since after I posted for a volunteer to stand in Noone came forward, and I can go on. Folks a prominent guyanese saw me last week and ask how was the breakfast I've been receiving? She was informed by a prominent son name given that he supplies meals daily, i responded not true not even once. Folks I'm well aware of and appreciate the moral support of all those rooting for me, but I shouldn't have to beg, for Noone had to beg me to take a stand, my sacrifice is costly and its for all of us. I never signed up for this expecting to get rich, but I refuse to accept that losing money during this our struggle, at the rate that I am, is a necessary evil. It's unfair to me and it hurts. I'm losing my voice, honey stop working weeks ago, losing my voice talking to my fellow citizens daily, outside AG chambers, about selflessness, love for country, the contents of Anil's transcript and it's translation, etc. If this cold selfishness isn't corrected, I will have to reconsider my strategy/approach to this cause. Just had to clear my chest. Love u guys and please continue to pray for CourtneyCrum-Ewing.

Article 146 and 147 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana (Guyana Constitution), Chapter 1:01 of the Laws of Guyana provides that:

146. (1) Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference and freedom from interference with his correspondence.
147. (1) Except with his or her own consent, no person shall be hindered in the employment of his her freedom of assembly, association and freedom to demonstrate peacefully, that is to say, his or her right to assemble freely, to demonstrate peacefully and to associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties, trade unions or other associations for the protection of his or her interests.

Underlying Article 146 (1) freedom of expression are the core values of (1) seeking the truth and the common good; (2) promoting self-fulfillment of individuals by allowing them to develop thoughts and ideas as they see fit; and (3) ensuring that participation in the political process is open to all persons.

Article 147(1) freedom of association is meant to protect the collective pursuit of common goals; it allows people to bind together in various ways for the most diverse purposes. It is an essential form of action and expression which informs the entire life of the community.

That Mr. Crum-Ewing was murdered while  engaged in electioneering on behalf of the APNU/AFC in the Diamond area came in the wake of a week of interesting politics in Guyana.

March 08, 2015, is a day that obstensibly should be focused on the memory of Dr. Cheddie Jagan, a long-time politician, Premier, Opposition Leader, and former President of Guyana. During the PPP/C political campaign in Babu Jaan, former Executive President Bharrat Jagdeo very vocally echoed his edit to the current Executive President Donald Ramotar "And Donald you are a democratic man, sometimes we need to administer something else you know, some kicks up some asses too.” This statement has been and will continue to subjected to analysis and various interpretation but such a statement shows some intolerance in a free and democratic society.

On March 10, 2015, Mr. Seelall Persaud, D.S.M. was sworn into his position of Commissioner of Police, having acted in that position for close to one year. According to GINA:

Commissioner Seelall indicated, even if a worse case scenario presents itself such as a “total breakdown in law and order,” he emphasised.  He stated that he and the police force have been preparing for the eventuality since the formal date was announced.

The  Ministry of Home Affairs, where the line Minister is responsible for the internal security of the state, includng policing issued a press statement. That press statement read:

Press Statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
March 10th 2015
The Ministry of Home Affairs condemns in the strongest possible terms, the shooting to death of Courtney Crum Ewing by unknown person or persons this evening in the Grove /Diamond area, East Bank Demerara.
The Minister of Home Affairs has given orders to the Commissioner of Police to take immediate action with a view to getting to the bottom of this execution-type shooting incident, through the most thorough investigation.
Though it is early yet to draw any specific conclusion or motive in connection with the perpetration of this dastardly act, the Ministry of Home Affairs wishes to alert the general public to be vigilant in respect of any act of violence provoked or unprovoked, that might be possibly initiated by those who may have a political agenda.
The Ministry notes the deep coincidence between the fatal shooting incident and the earlier swearing in of the new Commissioner of Police.
The Ministry extends its sympathy to family and relatives of Courtney Crum Ewing and pledges to support the police in their investigations to bring the perpetrator or perpetrators to justice.
The Ministry calls on anyone who may have knowledge about the circumstances /motive surrounding the shooting death of Courtney Crum Ewing to give their full support to the police in their investigation.

On March 10, 2015, I understood the Commissioner of Police to say post swearing in that the Guyana Police Force has been trained and is ready for every and all eventualities including a total breakdown in law and order during the 2015 elections. A known activist was killed the said evening in circumstances that suggested a nexus to politics.

Having regard to the statement of the  Ministry of Home Affairs, could the suggestion of "the deep coincidence between the fatal shooting incident and the earlier swearing in of the new Commissioner of Police" be that the death squad ran out of [....] are operating outside of the law and want to send a message that the Commissioner of Police, Guyana Police Force, cannot touch them? Alternatively, could the suggestion be that agent provaceteurs bent on staying in power took the action to disrupt the peace and order during the elections? In order words, create a crises of public disorder and tit-for-tat violence? In the other alternative, could the coincidence be that the concept of the "democratic man" is being thrown by the wayside for "kick-ass" politics?

In my opinion, the murder of Mr. Crum-Ewing suggests that the death squads received their marching orders last weekend and now the political assassinations has begun in Guyana.

Whatever the motive for the murder of Mr. Crum-Ewing the effect is chilling for his family, notably his three young daughters; his friends and society as a whole.

              ********
Recently Regan "Grey boy" Rodrigues was charged by the Guyana Police Force with the murder of activist Courtney Crum Ewing. Rajput Narine, an ex-bodyguard of former Attorney General Anil Nandlall and Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), was arrested by the Guyana Police Force. He has yet to be charged. Anil Nandlall distanced himself fvrom his bodyguard, claiming that the bodyguard worked for him for less than one week.

              ********
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20  and Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (2015 - decision reserved); Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General) 2014 CarswellOnt 10955, 2014 ONCA 578, 121 O.R. (3d) 1, 376 D.L.R. (4th) 258 (CA) and most recently R. v. Steele (2015) ONCA 169 (Ont. C.A.);  the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act. ONSC 352 (ON S.C.).

Selwyn has provided representation to persons charged with various criminal offenses including Drugs: Selling and Possessing, Shoplifting, Serious Offences of Violence: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Robbery, Gun Offences, sexual assault, robbery, theft, extortion, HIV/AIDS litigation; fraud, break & enter, attempted murder, murder, regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, professional disciplinary offences, and conspiracy offences.

Selwyn has also been involved in drugs, guns and gang trials including "Project Green Apple", "Project XXX" and "Project Kryptic", "Project Corral" which are some of Canada's largest Criminal Organization prosecutions. Selwyn is currently counsel for an accused in "Project Feline" and Project Revival" drug sting operations. In Project Corral, Selwyn's advocacy resulted in the "gang expert" evidence being discredited and the Criminal Organization charges against his client and others being tossed out by the Court: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)

Selwyn recently obtained an extraordinary remedy of costs agains the Crown for failure to provide disclosure of police officer memo book notes in R. v. W.(J.), [2013] O.J. No. 2284, 2013 CarswellOnt 6322, 2013 ONCJ 270 (Ont. CJ.).

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695.

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn was co-counsel in the world's first-ever sexual HIV transmission murder trial of Johnson Aziga in Hamilton, Ontario. See, for example, R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39222 (ON S.C.); R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 29780 (ON S.C.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has acted in exclusion cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: See, Song Dae Ri (Re) 2003 CarswellNat 4527; (2004) 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 203; Liang (Re) 2002 CarswellNat 4719; 33 Imm. L.R. (3d) 251.

Selwyn has appeared in  Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Selwyn is currently co-counsel representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

Proroguing of the 10th Parliament of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on November 10, 2014
Updated on November 12, 2014

On November 10, 2014, Executive President, Donald Ramotar, in an address to the citizens of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, provided his reasons for issuing a Proclamation proroguing the
10th Parliament of Guyana. His reasons centered on the No-Confidence Vote that was to be introduced by the Alliance for Change (AFC) and supported by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), whose combined vote give the opposition a majority in Parliament.

Proroguing is a power the President has under Article 70 (1) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Chapter 001:01.That section provides that:"The President may at any time by proclamation prorogue Parliament." The Legislative history on the debates on the 1980 constitution contains little on the powers to prorogue Parliament. A question was raised by M. F. Singh of the Liberator Party, however, that question did not deal directly with this subject matter. So that their is little to no legislative history on this section of the Constitution in the debates.

On the subject matter of the effect of proroguing Parliament, Attorney at Law, Christopher Ram observed that:

Prorogation brings the sittings of the House to an end and neither the House nor any of its committees may meet following prorogation until Parliament is again specifically summoned to meet. Note however that Parliament is not brought to an end by prorogation and in that regard prorogation differs from dissolution which not only brings the sittings of the House to an end but also brings Parliament to an end and precipitates a general election.

If the President does prorogue the National Assembly it seems that the Executive can function for as a long as six months without any further session or sitting of the Assembly. If my reading of Article 69 of the Constitution is correct, it seems too that the President can re-convene the National Assembly at any time no later than such six months and then immediately prorogue the Assembly again. (Online: Christopher Ram Blog page <http://www.chrisram.net/?p=1577#more-1577>, Tuesday November 11, 2014)

The reasons provided by the President for such an action are as follows:

It is no secret that the Parliamentary Opposition parties had, at every conceivable opportunity, made known their clear intention to have their motion of no confidence against my Government debated instantly at the first post-recess sitting which was called for today, November 10. Their one-seat majority in Parliament could only mean its passage and the immediate irreversible dissolution of Parliament.  

My appeals to return to normalcy, to constructively address the many important issues confronting us in Guyana, appear to have fallen on deaf ears. 

The Opposition in Parliament intends to end the life of the 10th Parliament with immediate effect, dashing all hopes for urgent attention to issues relating to economic growth, social services and yes, the holding of Local Government Elections.

The President then went on to "assure all that my decision ensures that the life of the 10th Parliament is preserved up to a maximum of six (6) months, as permitted by the Constitution of Guyana."

Unfortunately, in my view, the reasons provided by the President are not cogent and does not provide a reasonable basis for the action taken by him. His exercise of discretion is lawful but it impact and/or effect serves to disenfranchise the majority of the Guyanese people who elected their Members of Parliament to serve in the Parliament and to hold the government of the day to account.

In addressing the discretion of the President to use the power of  proroguing parliament that reside with him under Article 70 (1) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Human Rights Lawyer, Ulele Burnham, posits:

When a discretion is vested in a member of the legislature it must be exercised judiciously and for the public good. What it is being used for here is not for the public good as any of us understand it, but to protect a government under threat of nothing more than a demand for accountability by elected representatives. What you say seems to amount to this ( and herein lies the problem for Guyana) : If Burnham invented it for the preservation of the power of (his) executive then we too must use it for the preservation of ours. Do fuh do nah obeah...Then this government must blame no body other than itself for the decline in public ethics. It had it in its own hands to alter things and it has opted for the low road. (Online: Enrico Woolford page <https://www.facebook.com/enrico.woolford?fref=nf&pnref=story>, Tuesday November 11, 2014)

Opposition Leader Brigadier David Granger of APNU stated in Parliament that President Ramoutar has "single-handedly engineered a constitutional crises" to:

1) Avoid parliamentary scrutiny;
2) Avoid the no-confidence motion which was scheduled to be debated on November 10, 2014;
3) Avoid holding Local Government Elections;
4) Avoid debate on the financial excesses and improprieties;
5) protect the reputation of its ministers from parliamentary scrutiny and sanctions;
6) permit the PPP election campaing to proceed unhindered;
7) continue the expenditure of state funds without parliamentary scrutiny
8) move Guyana into a one-party state.

In terms of the prospects, success and risk of this use of a Presidential Prerogative, Former Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran observed that:

The political heat that would be generated by prorogation would mean that the Government would be unlikely to later obtain Opposition support to approve a budget and estimates. It would, therefore, have to dissolve the National Assembly in April and call elections. Of course, the Government has been spending without parliamentary approval and may continue to do so where it deems that the spending is necessary due to ‘unforeseen’ and similar circumstances. Even though the Government would hardly be able to justify that its own act of prorogation creates ‘unforeseen’ circumstances, stranger things have happened.

But what about the President’s challenge to the AFC to’ bring it on’ and ‘make my day?’ A prorogation of the National Assembly as a tactic to delay holding elections to a later time that is more favourable to the Government would not be unusual. Prime Minister Stephen Harper did it in Canada when a no confidence motion was threatening his second minority government. But in our case, where the Government dared the AFC, a prorogation would create the impression that it has dropped its bravado and is slipping through the back door.
(Online: Ralph Ramkarran  "Slipping through the Back Door" <http://conversationtree.gy/slipping-through-the-back-door/> Conversation Tree, Tuesday November 11, 2014)

Human Rights Lawyer, Ulele Burnham, having regard to the process to amend the 1980 Constitution, promulgated by her father, then President Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham wrote:

....My suspicion is that no-one may have properly anticipated the prorogation power being used in this way or in these circumstances? As I recall Albie Sachs, one of the architects of the new South African constitution, was involved in some part of the constitutional reform process which included a number of internationally recognised legal luminaries. Given their task, it may well have been that they did not regard the power to prorogue as either the most offending provision of the constitution or as inherently undemocratic - which of course it is not. (Online: Enrico Woolford page <https://www.facebook.com/enrico.woolford?fref=nf&pnref=story>, Tuesday November 11, 2014)

Recently at Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry Basil Williams, shadow Minister (opposition critic) Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs of Guyana  addressed the 1980 Constitution and its executive powers with - Justice Charles R. Ramson, S.C., O.R., three-time Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs of Guyana:

Mr. Williams: Alright. Now, the final thing I want to address you on and ask you to deal with the Commission on, is this 1980 Constitution that was so vilified at the time.
Justice Ramson: It was what?
Mr. Williams: So vilified at the time. Now, this Constitution according to you is substantially the same here and exists today? Justice Ramson: Yes. But we have added human rights…
Mr. Williams: And that Constitution, notwithstanding the attacks on it, you have had President Jagan, Mrs. Jagan, President Hinds, President Jagdeo and now President Ramoutar all operating under the same constitution.
Justice Ramson: Your use of the language. It is not the same. It has been adjusted. If you remember there was a big adjustment in 2003.
Mr. Williams: Adjusted to do what?
Justice Ramson: To include a lot of corrections.
Mr. Williams: To reduce the Executive powers?
Justice Ramson: If you were the President, you would reduce it?
Mr. Williams: So you agree that the Executive powers were not reduced?
Justice Ramson: I do not think he should reduce it. You do not tinker with a Constitution. So we have to call a new Constituent Assembly and waste the people’s money.

Opposition Leader Brigadier David Granger in a speech in Parliament called for the mobilizing of Trade Unions, Churches, Masjids, Mandiers, and citizens in peace. He also called for an early revocation of the Proclamation proroguing the 10th Parliament of Guyana. It is safe to say that Guyana has gone into the realm of uncertainty and the resources of the Guyana Police Force will be taxed as the Guvernment used its police and military mite to crush the will of the Guyanese people and their duly elected representatives.

Politics as it is in Guyana, one can expect that will the Proroguing of the 10th Parliament an autocracy will no  reach its zenith. That newspapers were reporting on November 09, 2014 the stepped up training of the Tactical Services Unit of the Guyana Police Force in anticipation of public demonstrations: See, Police undergo riot/public disorder training ahead of looming elections, INEWS Guyana, November 09, 2014; TSU Riot/Public Disorder Squad continues training for any eventuality, Guyana Chronicle,, November 08, 2014.

The Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), José Miguel Insulza, issued a statement on its website:

The head of the hemispheric Organization said, "in a democracy, an efficient functioning of the Parliament allows for checks and balances and for the voice of the people to be heard." He recalled that "since the last elections in November 2011, Guyana has had a split governance system with the executive controlled by one party and the combined opposition having the majority in Parliament." In this context, Insulza said "this situation presents both challenges and opportunities for all parties in Guyana to work together for the greater good of the country."

(Online: Organization of American States (OAS) page - press release E-483/14 <http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-483/14>, Tuesday November 11, 2014)

Guyana is, for all intents and purposes, entering uncharted territory. With the absence of the checks and balances that the legislative branch of government provides on the Executive Branch of Government, President Ramoutar and his cabinet are now at liberty to exercise executive power in which that does not attract accountability and/or challenge. This would not be a helpful state of affairs if the political party exercising executive power seriously is comtemplating contesting the next general elections.

********
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago) is a Constitutional, Civil, Human Rights and Criminal Litiigation Lawyer at Pieters Law Office based in Toronto, Canada.

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20, Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn has provided representation to persons charged with various criminal offenses including Drugs: Selling and Possessing, Shoplifting, Serious Offences of Violence: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Robbery, Gun Offences, sexual assault, robbery, theft, extortion, HIV/AIDS litigation; fraud, break & enter, attempted murder, murder, regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, professional disciplinary offences, and conspiracy offences.

Selwyn has also been involved in drugs, guns and gang trials including "Project Green Apple", "Project XXX" and "Project Kryptic", "Project Corral" which are some of Canada's largest Criminal Organization prosecutions. Selwyn is currently counsel for an accused in "Project Feline" and Project Revival" drug sting operations. In Project Corral, Selwyn's advocacy resulted in the "gang expert" evidence being discredited and the Criminal Organization charges against his client and others being tossed out by the Court: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)

Selwyn recently obtained an extraordinary remedy of costs agains the Crown for failure to provide disclosure of police officer memo book notes in R. v. W.(J.), [2013] O.J. No. 2284, 2013 CarswellOnt 6322, 2013 ONCJ 270 (Ont. CJ.).

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695.

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn was co-counsel in the world's first-ever sexual HIV transmission murder trial of Johnson Aziga in Hamilton, Ontario. See, for example, R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39222 (ON S.C.); R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 29780 (ON S.C.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has acted in exclusion cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: See, Song Dae Ri (Re) 2003 CarswellNat 4527; (2004) 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 203; Liang (Re) 2002 CarswellNat 4719; 33 Imm. L.R. (3d) 251.

Selwyn has appeared in  Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Selwyn is currently co-counsel with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Charles Rishiram Ramson on Guyana Police Force

A retired Judge enlightened view on the Guyana Police Force

A 1986 picture of Tactical Services Unit members
some of whom served in 1979.
The member circled in red is very special

"Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem with stereotyping...
Justice Ramson: That is not stereotyping. You do not know that in this country in order to relieve
the country of the crime rate in those days Mr. Burnham took all the people who were known criminals and made them Policemen.
Mr. Pieters: You see again that is the problem …
Justice Ramson: You do not know that, I am telling you.
Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem. You are now denigrating the character of people who served this country...."


By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on November 05, 2014
Updated on November 07, 2014

As a lawyer with significant experience in human rights, civil rights and non-adversarial matters, I was retained to represent its interest of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) at the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry. I am currently co-counsel representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

Whether as Judicial Officers or Information Commissioner, lawyer or ordinary Joe Public. stereotyping is simply wrong. That was the point to which I took on Charles Ramson on November 03, 2014. Part of Charles Ramson examination in Chief before the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry comes to mind when providing evidence on the predominantly Black, Afro-Guyanese, Tactical Services Unit of the Guyana Police Force:

Justice Ramson: Correct. He did not had a car at the time so wanted a lift home from the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)’s place and I offered to drop him home, but we wanted to go and see this… have a look and see what is going on at this meeting because the political temperature was rising, the thermostat was bursting at the seams. So we wanted to see what was going on, not to be participants that is why we stood so far away about 500 yards away from the meeting and if you know Mr. Chang, Justice Chang is not a man who likes to be involved at a political level. So while we were there, we noticed a squad of Policemen or people who were dressed in Pplice clothing. In those days we used to call it the riot squad. I do not know it is the same as the TSU now, but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence use to frighten them.
Mr. Hanoman: They used to make you as well afraid Justice Ramson?
Justice Ramson: Of course, what happen to me, I do not look like six foot, four. I may have a very strong mind and personality, I do not ever believe I can be described as a coward, but I can tell you I was no match physically for those… some of them said they were not Policemen, that is evidence in the case. The defense in the case was these people were thugs from the House of Israel and the Court of Appeal gave them short shrift it is all part of the evidence. When you read the case you will see it.
Mr. Hanoman: So this group of Police who you identified as Riot Police were approaching yourself and Justice Ian Chang…
Justice Ramson: And as they were coming, they were clearing the streets people who were standing on the road, hanging around, going into the people’s yard and pulled them out. So Justice Chang and I were standing and watching and seeing what they were doing not knowing we were going to be the last victims. Well when I say “we” not him. So when they approached, I knew the man who was the Officer in charge because I interacted, I did a lot of criminal works in those days and I had to interact with most of the Policemen they even used to call me “Al Pacino” and “Serpico”. They had a big film called “Justice for All” or something and “Serpico”. So the Policemen who got to know me they gave me that moniker.

Cross-examination by Pieters - part of my aim here was to expose the absurdity  of the testimony, particularly in so far as members of the Tactical Services Services Unit are concerned. He you will see when challenged on his height desgription, it changed from 6'4", to 6'2" or 6'3":

Mr. Pieters: Let me quote the passage to you Justice Ramson. It says, “It is quite evident that the Police following their directive from the Divisional Headquarters went to the venue of the proposed meeting prepared for and ready to deal with such preaches as might occur. Even the Riot Squad was there, but they did not go into action nor did in support of his viva voce evidence speak to any incidence whatsoever involved in the preach of the peace”. Do you recall that passage from your case?
Justice Ramson: I am accepting you reading verbatim, I do not recall it, but they obviously are referring to where the actual venue was, not where I was. I was 500 yards away from there.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that you were …
Justice Ramson: I accept Counsel’s word, I do not …
Mr. Pieters: So the Riot Squad, you say that it was member of the Riot Squad that attacked you.
Justice Ramson: That is how I know them; I see it marked on their helmet and I am telling you again I know about the different in physical attributes of different departments of the Police Force. They got certain people who are traffic people and they would be of a certain kind of stature. When it comes to the resisting any encroachments on the right of the State, they have these very large fellas and they belong to Special Squads. The Special Branch of this country, you do not even know that they are Special Branch; some of them look like market people.
Mr. Pieters: Let us deal with the size of Police Officers because you seem to be sort of misrepresenting or seem to be portraying that protest, misrepresentation of what Police Officers were at that material time. Any Police Officers that were hired by the Guyana Police Force came through the Felix Austin Police College before they were just dispersed to any specific unit.
Justice Ramson: That College came long after the time I am talking about.
Mr. Pieters: So you are saying that Eve Leary did not exist in 19 …
Justice Ramson: But it was not called Felix Austin …
Mr. Pieters: … well, but it was there.
Justice Ramson: … they must have gone to some kind preliminary training school. I do not know where, but I can tell you Felix Austin was a distinguished Police and he, the name …
Mr. Pieters: I am not concerned who Felix Austin was, I am concerned about where Police Officers were hired and where they were trained so you just answer the questions I asked you and nothing else.
Justice Ramson: Yes well, I can try that.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this, you would know that the Guyana Police Force has any other Police organisation at least until, let us say the 1980’s, they had a height requirement for example, for people who want to be members of their organisations.
Justice Ramson: That was a requirement and it was always the case that you need to be of a certain height before you were able to qualify to be admitted to the Police Force.
Mr. Pieters: So it would be that any member of the Guyana Police Force would have been over 5’ 11”?
Justice Ramson: I do not think 5’ 11’; I think about 5’ 6”.
Mr. Pieters: I am telling you what their height requirement was, 5’ 11” and over.
Justice Ramson: If that is what the record is, I would accept that.
Mr. Pieters: So when you saw people and they were around 6 feet tall or over, that would have been consistent with the hiring practice at the time across the board?
Justice Ramson: I am speaking about 6’ 4”.
Mr. Pieters: And how many people that you say would have been about 6’ 4” that would have been in the Tactical Service Unit on 22nd August, 1979?
Justice Ramson: The people who I saw on that day, none of them were less than 6’ 2”; 6’ 3”.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt your flow Counsel; could you tell me the source of the height per commendation that you just put forward, the height requirement, Counsel? You said it is 5’ 11” …
Mr. Pieters: 5’ 11”.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: … where is this source of that?
Mr. Pieters: It is in the Guyana Police Force recruitment material. I will have it laid over to the Commission …
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: It is in the Guyana Police Force, what?
Mr. Pieters: … recruitment material. I would have it laid over to the Commission.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Counsel, I am concerned about relevance. How is that likely to be helpful?
Mr. Pieters: Sorry, I just missed what you just said, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: I was saying I was beginning to get concerned about relevance. How is it likely to be helpful to us?
Mr. Pieters: How is what, relevant or helpful to you?
Mr. Chairman: The questions that you are opposing and the evidence that you are trying to extract.
Mr. Pieters: The Witness is being cross-examined on the evidence he gave this morning. He gave that evidence and he is being cross-examined. Let me ask you this, going to the meat of …
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I think you are saying that you are not as menacing he made them out to be or they were not a Special Squad of menaces?
Mr. Pieters: Well, yes, he tried sort to have us to a stereotypical image what Tactical Services Unit Officers would look like.
Mr. Chairman: I thought he was referring to conduct rather than appearance.
Mr. Pieters: No, he was referring to appearance. You look at the transcripts. I was here and I heard it. He is trying to stereotype Officers in a way that is inappropriate.

......
Mr. Pieters: You would admit or agree that you are pretty litigious. You already had the experience with in respect to the Persaud Case so you had already access the Courts successfully and you know how to access the Court?
Justice Ramson: Yes, but I do not like the word “pretty litigious”; if a man beat me up tomorrow I will take the State to Court.
Mr. Pieters: And that is acceptable. You would also agree that under the Police Act, they were disciplined and employment consequences for Officers who misused their authority as Police Officers?
Justice Ramson: There is a Police Disciplinary Act, I think is Chapter 16:02 and it creates the framework for disciplining the Policemen, but before you discipline the Policeman you have to know who the Policeman is. You cannot go and say Mr. Doe, like you can do in America, I think, Mr. Doe. You got to know the man name and all of them look alike. They do not look like Mr. Williams different from Mr. Hanoman.
Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem with stereotyping Mr. …
Justice Ramson: That is not stereotyping. You do not know that in this country in order to relieve the country of the crime rate in those days Mr. Burnham took all the people who were known criminals and made them Policemen.
Mr. Pieters: You see again that is the problem …
Justice Ramson: You do not know that, I am telling you.
Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem. You are now denigrating the character of people who served this country, but that is not …
Justice Ramson: That is not nothing denigrating.
Mr. Pieters: … excuse me, just let me finish, but I am not here to debate that point. I am just here to ask you questions and have you answered them.
Justice Ramson: But when you tell me I am stereotyping them, you do not know what the context is. I live through the time.
Mr. Pieters: And you say that, well I am not going to repeat your defamatory remarks about Officers.
12:57hrs
Justice Ramson: Defamatory? I never defamed anybody. I am telling you the truth; I am like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
Mr. Pieters: So you, well … anyway. You did not…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Sorry, I am going to dwell on this a little. Justice Ramson, as a private practitioner and as a Judge, you did find that there were honourable persons in the Police Force?
Justice Ramson: Oh yes, on to now.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: From 1979 up to now?
Justice Ramson: On to now.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Justice Ramson: Not every person in the barrel was rotten.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I thought that is what you meant.
Justice Ramson: No.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: That it was everybody.
Justice Ramson: No, no.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I just wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify.

 Mr. Pieters: Very well and you testified earlier this morning that there were members of the Death Squad or the Tactical Services Unit (TSU) present?
Justice Ramson: I did not know them as the Tactical Services Unit (TSU) at the time. Maybe that name was given afterwards. I know them as the Riot Squad from Eve Leary.
Mr. Pieters: Well let me suggest this to you about the Tactical Services Unit. Riot control is just one aspect of the functions that the Tactical Services Unit would be performing?
Justice Ramson: Well, if they were so named at that time. I knew them as the Riot Squad.
Mr. Pieters: Right because when you saw them outside of Police Headquarters, you would see them on riot control duties?
Justice Ramson: I did not see them outside Police Headquarters.
Mr. Pieters: I thought you testified that you did on 22nd August, 1979.
Justice Ramson: No, they were running down the road on Sheriff Street. That is not Police Headquarters.
Mr. Pieters: Right that is outside of Police Headquarters?
Justice Ramson: No that is not outside of. Outside of means that there is a proximity issue. You mean when they are not at their home base and they are doing duties outside. But not outside of the office itself or the department.
Mr. Pieters: Outside part of their duties, you would have seen them guarding the police compounds, for example Police Headquarters you would see them protecting that compound?
Justice Ramson: I have no recollection ever going there to see whether they are protecting the compound.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. But what you do know and that is in your decision at page 224 is that the Riot Squad, as you call it, they were not put into action on 22nd August, 1979?
Justice Ramson: They were not?
Mr. Pieters: That is right. That is what your decisions say.
Justice Ramson: Well I do not know. The people I know who were coming down Sheriff Street, I recognised them from their uniform and the helmets they were wearing and it was marked Riot Squad.
Mr. Pieters: There is not a debate that the Riot Squad or the Tactical Services Unit was or was not present. They were present, but they did not go into action in terms of the dispersal of people who were assembled?

The extracts of the November 07, 2014 hearing at the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry on the above noted subject matter is below. Please note the Commission's statement and Pieters statement on behalf of the GTUC:

Mr. Chairman [Sir. Richard L. Cheltenham, K.A., Q.C., Ph.D.]: We are back in session, and I wish to begin by indicating to those present as well as to those public that we apologise for the delay in resuming; but we took the opportunity of the break with all present: Commission Counsel, and the Secretariat, to set dates for the New Year, to the extent that this is our last sitting for this year. We had to make sure we were all armed with our 2015 diaries. I did promise before the break that I would make a statement in relation to a complaint made by our Retired Justice Ramson, in relation to two articles that appeared in the Stabroek News, as well as the Kaieteur News. The statement reads as follows, “Retired Justice, Mr. Charles Ramson testified before the Commission on Monday, and Tuesday last. In a report of his testimony in the Stabroek News of Tuesday, November 04th, he is reported as having testified that he observed a team of policemen...” and the exact word here is, “...who he described as...” and I quote, “...as the red squad breaking up the WPA meeting that afternoon. He described the Policemen as “Big Monkey” 6.7” people, adding that their mere presence was intimidating.” In the Kaieteur News, dated Thursday, 06th of November, 2014; there is, at page 17, a headline “GTUC condemns Ramson’s “Monkey” reference to Policemen.” The Kaieteur News added in one paragraph, “While the statement was not met with any objections from those participating in the Commission of Inquiry (COI), it did not escape the attention of GTUC.”
13:13hrs
Mr. Chairman: The testimony given before the Commission is recorded and verbatim reports are provided every evening. The tape has been checked as well as the verbatim reports and the word “monkey” does not appear on the tape or in the verbatim reports. Put differently, there is no evidence before us that the word “monkey” was ever used in the course of his testimony by Justice of Appeal Ramson. In these circumstances, the Commission had nothing to object to and Mr. Ramson had been inaccurately reported. In the event described the Stabroek News may wish to take note of this statement which are making and to withdraw the statement and the make the appropriate amends to Mr. Ramson. We have the audio and will play it for the benefit of the public.
[Audio of the 03rd November, 2014 played for the benefit of the public]
“Justice Ramson: 1970 was the… the Act was passed in 1970 and no further appeals could be had but all appeals that were pending or in the system had to be finished by 1972. That Declaration of the Republic in 1970 had some significance as well because we no longer could access honours from the Queen and the last person to get on the last day of 1969 who received a Knight Wood, was and still and is extraordinary and distinguished Jurist, I am not going to call his name, you blow whistle and I will tell you if it is true.
Counsel to the Commission Mr. Hanoman: Could I now bring you to the case of Charles Rishi Ram Ramson against Lloyd Barker, Commissioner of Police and Attorney General.
Mr. Hanoman: That name is a reference to you, Justice Ramson?
Justice Ramson: Yes, that was inspired by a beating…” “…August in 1975…” “…but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence use to frighten them.
Mr. Hanoman: They used to make you as well afraid Justice Ramson?
Mr. Ramson: Correct. “…but the riot squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence use to frighten them.”
Mr. Chairman: In the transcript of the day’s proceeding Monday, the 03rd November, 2014 at page 18 this is the Verbatim Report. “While we were there we noticed a squad of Policemen or people who were dressed in police clothing. In those days we used to call it the riot squad. I do not know if it is the same as the TSU now, but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes so that you, but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence used to frighten them.”
Mr. Williams: “Hunky”
Mr. Chairman: “Hunky” “…big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people…” so that the word “monkey” was not appeared on the tape. We have no memory of it being used here. So in the circumstances the newspaper may wish to take note and I leave it to the party’s concern. Thanks.
Attorney for the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) [Mr. Selwyn Pieters]: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, Selwyn Pieters for the GTUC that my client, Mr. Lincoln Lewis, is in the  room as well. When I heard Justice Ramson spoke at the Commission on Tuesday, I believe it was, I was anxious to see the Stabroek News to see what was reported and later listened to the rebroadcast of this hearing on NCN so I knew at that point that it was “hunky” as opposed to “monkey”. I was concerned at that point where the term “monkey” was used as to what the impact would have been on the reading public. And so, the GTUC did read the newspapers and took cognizance of what the newspaper reported as opposed to what the transcript would have been and I did not have the opportunity to review the press statement before it went, otherwise, I would have caught it and corrected it. So on behalf of GTUC, I am apologising that they took the word or the reporting of the Stabroek News as something that actually was the records of these proceedings when they were not. But I would say this as well we were concerned and the record illustrates it that we were concerned about how Justice Ramson described the Policemen of that era. He spoke of the Policemen being recruited by the Prime Minister of the day as criminals and thieves I felt that those were inappropriate stereotyping of police officers and the way he described as…
Mr. Chairman: One minute…
Mr. Pieters: Excuse me, let me finish.
Mr. Chairman: I thought I was giving you the opportunity to apologise now you want to go beyond the issue that we are dealing with?
Mr. Pieters: The issue that we are dealing with and I think the crux of what the Stabroek News Article meant to portray is the inappropriate stereotyping of people. We have apologise that the term “monkey” was used in the Stabroek News and in the Kaieteur News, but the issue of stereotyping is an issue that was alive and well during Justice Ramson's testimony here and that is an issue as a Human Rights Lawyer that I was alive to at the time.
Mr. Chairman: That is not an issue for us.
Mr. Pieters: I am simply using this opportunity to speak on it as well because it must be noted that there were stereotypes used in his evidence that was challenged.
Mr. Chairman: With respect, Mr. Pieters, there is no issue before us of stereotyping so why are you using the opportunity to speak on the issue of stereotyping there is no stereotyping before the Commission. Mr. Ramson made his comments, he testified. When the time comes for submission, you may say all of that, but that has no issue before us whether he used stereotyping or not.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you too.
Attorney for the People’s National Congress (PNC) [Mr. Basil Williams]: Just to say Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that if Mr. Ramson had used the term “monkey” in that box there, I surely would have invade against that term.
Mr. Chairman: I think all of us would have.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: But there is no evidence at all that Justice used the expression.
Mr. Williams: I must, well I must say I did not hear any “monkey”.
Mr. Chairman: So I think from my view point we have put the matter to rest. What happens now between Justice Ramson and the newspaper is a different matter, no concerns of ours and I would like to indicate that indeed but I did not thank Mr. Pieters for the concession which he made on behalf of his client.
[Cheltenham's attempt to silence me on the nub of the issue has me concerned on the issue of stereotyping and adding a stamp of legitimacy to it - anyone can read the transcripts of the evidence of November 04, 2014 and form their own conclusion. I rely on the transcript, my life experience and the contextual analysis of racism and stereotyping rather than this abrogation of responsibility to deal with such issues where and when they arise.]

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry Round 6, Day 10 Highlights,New Guyana Media,  November 03, 2014

GTUC apologises to Ramson over inaccurate statement, Stabroek News, November 08, 2014

Justice Ramson: I said “hunky” not “monkey” — Guyana Times, November 08, 2014

Apology by Stabroek News - Stabroek News, November 08, 2014

********
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20, Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn has provided representation to persons charged with various criminal offenses including Drugs: Selling and Possessing, Shoplifting, Serious Offences of Violence: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Robbery, Gun Offences, sexual assault, robbery, theft, extortion, HIV/AIDS litigation; fraud, break & enter, attempted murder, murder, regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, professional disciplinary offences, and conspiracy offences.

Selwyn has also been involved in drugs, guns and gang trials including "Project Green Apple", "Project XXX" and "Project Kryptic", "Project Corral" which are some of Canada's largest Criminal Organization prosecutions. Selwyn is currently counsel for an accused in "Project Feline" and Project Revival" drug sting operations. In Project Corral, Selwyn's advocacy resulted in the "gang expert" evidence being discredited and the Criminal Organization charges against his client and others being tossed out by the Court: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)

Selwyn recently obtained an extraordinary remedy of costs agains the Crown for failure to provide disclosure of police officer memo book notes in R. v. W.(J.), [2013] O.J. No. 2284, 2013 CarswellOnt 6322, 2013 ONCJ 270 (Ont. CJ.).

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695.

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn was co-counsel in the world's first-ever sexual HIV transmission murder trial of Johnson Aziga in Hamilton, Ontario. See, for example, R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39222 (ON S.C.); R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 29780 (ON S.C.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has acted in exclusion cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: See, Song Dae Ri (Re) 2003 CarswellNat 4527; (2004) 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 203; Liang (Re) 2002 CarswellNat 4719; 33 Imm. L.R. (3d) 251.

Selwyn has appeared in  Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Selwyn is currently co-counsel with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.