 |
| Selwyn Pieters and Eusi Kwayana |
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on June 13, 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 (WARCOI).
The cross-examination that I conduct on Dr. Kwayana went to the modus operandi of Dr Walter Rodney as a political leader. It explored whether he was a team player? Did he heed the advice of the older sages? Did he trust others around him or only himself and siblings? Was there a disagreement on the violent vs non-violent means for the overthrow of the Forbes Burnham PNC government? What were the signs the WPA were looking for to determine 'all other means had failed'? Who was to make that call? Kwayana told the COI that "Rodney was motivated in becoming more resolute in getting rid of Burnham and the PNC.." It is common knowledge that the WPA and PPP alliance broke up. Without the PPP how could the WPA have gotten rid of Burnham and the PNC electorally?
Excerpts of June 02, 2014 evidence of Eusi Kwayana - Cross-examination by Pieters
Mr. Chairman: The Guyana Trades Union Congress.
Mr. Pieters: Good morning, Mr. Kwayana.
Mr. Kwayana: Good morning, Counsel.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you very much, Sir. You spoke, Mr. Kwayana, about the collective leadership which was the manner in which the WPA operated?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: Can you describe what or explain that concept, please?
Mr. Chairman: Was that not explored already, Mr. Pieters, collective leadership? We are avoiding repetition. If someone has asked your question delete it from your list. I think collective leadership was explained already on Friday last, I think it was.
Mr. Pieters: Maybe I missed that part of the evidence. Okay, very well, I will move on.
Mr. Chairman: I might have misspoke somewhat because I am told that it was only explained who were the joint leaders, but the notion was not explained so I will permit a brief response.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you.
...
Mr. Kwayana: Yes, the collective leadership of the Working People’s Alliance simply meant that the elected Executive did not have a leader. The elected Executive were co-equal because we were trying to conquer the old politics and what happened was that each person, we still distributed the sort of initiative that a leader might be taking because, periodically, the person who chaired the collected leadership would rotate; it would pass from person to person and that was the essence of how it worked.Mr. Pieters: Now, in terms of that collective leadership, did the young Walter Rodney emerge at the apex of that leadership?
Mr. Kwayana: Not so far as the Working People’s Alliance was concerned. That was a matter of public perception. He was the most popular of the collective leadership for several reasons.
Mr. Pieters: How about Mr. Rupert Roopnarine?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes.Mr. Pieters: Yes, and yourself?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: And Lieutenant Omawale?
Mr. Kwayana: Omawale was really, Dr. Omawale was really out of the country. He had been working abroad in an international organisation and really when he got arrested, he was home on a visit. So he would not have come into that routine.
Mr. Pieters: I mean, part of the modus operandi of the WPA at the time was to get rid of the Burnham Government or dictatorship, as it was called, by any means possible. That much is established in the evidence. Correct?
Mr. Kwayana: Your Latin is confusing me, Counsel. I do not understand your Latin.
Mr. Pieters: The WPA had as one of its objectives, the removal of the Burnham Government by any means necessary. That much is established in the evidence?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes, it is established.
Mr. Pieters: If the Burnham regime was removed, who was going to assume this leadership of the country?
Mr. Kwayana: We had proposed a government of national unity and reconstruction, in a document drawn up by Dr. Rodney and approved by the collective leadership. So no one had been identified as a person to head any government. It was a question of getting forces together so that there could be some sense of national cohesion. A government of national unity and reconstruction and the whole point was to get rid of rigid party controls and to open up more to citizen of all strata in the population.
Mr. Pieters: I mean you would agree and your evidence has borne it out that Dr. Rodney was more popular than others. You would agree that he was a charismatic leader or a charismatic person?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes.Mr. Pieters: And on the issue of collective leadership, did Dr. Rodney accepted this notion of collectivism having fought so long with the African Liberation Movement where charisma mattered?
Mr. Kwayana: You are a little rapid there for me, please. Can you please repeat? I want to get your question please.
Mr. Pieters: On the issue of collective leadership, did Dr. Rodney accept this notion of collectivism having fought so long with the African Liberation Movement where charisma mattered?
Mr. Kwayana: I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Pieters: ...Mr. Kwayana, we agree that Dr. Rodney was a charismatic person?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: We also agree that Dr. Rodney had mass appeal?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: We agree that Dr. Rodney was an intellectual?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: Was Dr. Rodney a team player?
Mr. Kwayana: Was Dr. Rodney a what? Key player?
Mr. Pieters: Team player.
Mr. Kwayana: Team player, yes, very much so. Very very much a team player. Team worker. [Inaudible]
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Did he say team worker?
Mr. Chairman: Team player.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I think the witness added team worker.
Mr. Kwayana: I said team worker because I rather…
Mr. Pieters: Did Dr. Rodney shared confidences with you?
Mr. Kwayana: As he wished. I cannot say how many or if he shared all confidences with me, but he spoke to me freely so far as I know.
...
Mr. Pieters: My question is comparing yourself with Dr. Rodney, and I think you may have given this evidence on the first day you appeared as a witness; you were sort of an elder within the party?Mr. Kwayana: I think I was the oldest in the collective leadership.
Mr. Pieters: Did Dr. Rodney approach you for advice?
Mr. Kwayana: Dr. Rodney asked me for advice. We asked one another for advice. That is what it was about.
Mr. Pieters: Did Dr. Rodney follow the advice that you provided to him, to the best of your recollection?
Mr. Kwayana: That is difficult to recall.
Mr. Pieters: Pardon?
Mr. Kwayana: That is difficult to recall. It did not happen as frequently as you might think.
Mr. Pieters: You met with Dr. Rodney on the day of his demise, correct?
Mr. Kwayana: On the evening before he left the office, yes. He left me in the office.
Mr. Pieters: When you met with Dr. Rodney what was the nature of the discussion that took place between yourself and Dr. Rodney?
Mr. Kwayana: There was no particular discussion. He told me he was going to pick up his daughter at her school, I think it was St. Roses. I think it was a time when they had some activities at school.
Mr. Pieters: Did he discuss with you that he was going to be seeing Gregory Smith at some point that evening?
Mr. Kwayana: He certainly did not because I never heard the name “Gregory Smith” up to then.
Mr. Pieters: Did he tell you that he was going to be meeting his brother Donald that evening?
Mr. Kwayana: He may have, I am not too sure. It is his brother, I would not be surprised.
Mr. Pieters: Did he tell you that he was going to be testing a device?
Mr. Kwayana: No.
Mr. Pieters: To the best of your recollection, what he told you was that he was going to be picking his daughter up.
Mr. Kwayana: He was going to pick up his daughter at her school, that is, I thought he left the office at that time for that purpose.
Mr. Pieters: Can you explain then, why would Dr. Rodney choose his baby brother Donald against another leader in the collective leadership in the WPA to confide in? Why would he not have confided in you (1) that he was meeting with Gregory Smith (2) that he was going to be testing a device?
Mr. Chairman: Do you think that is an appropriate question for him to answer? Mr. Eusi, you answer it but I do not know that you would be able to answer that. It puts you in Rodney’s mind…
Mr. Kwayana: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Chairman: …and I did not know that you were residing there.
Mr. Pieters: Well, let me put it to you differently, Mr. Kwayana. I am going to suggest to you that Doctor Rodney did not trust you.
Mr. Kwayana: Oh! [Laughter] I am willing to accept that if you say so, but I think there is evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Pieters: Well, we know that he never told you about Gregory Smith, correct?
Mr. Kwayana: No.
Mr. Pieters: We know that he did not tell you about the testing of the device…
Mr. Kwayana: On…
Mr. Pieters: …on that evening in question.
Mr. Kwayana: On that evening, yes. I knew he was testing walkie-talkies, I said that in my statement. I knew he was collecting walkie-…
Mr. Pieters: Did you know who his suppliers were?
Mr. Kwayana: Did I know…
Mr. Pieters: …who his suppliers were for the walkie-talkies?
Mr. Kwayana: Oh, no, I never knew nor wanted to know. I did not know and I did not want to know.
Mr. Pieters: You did not want to know, so…
Mr. Kwayana: I did not ask.
Mr. Chairman: A few housekeeping matters which we have managed to resolve satisfactorily, but we are now free to go. Mr. Pieters, are you ready?
Mr. Pieters: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you had directed me to an aspect of the witness evidence or my questioning of the witness and so I need to ask him. Mr. Kwayana?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: The Chairman has asked this morning because I had raised a series of cases in which persons were charged with possession of firearms and possession of ammunition. The Chairman was interested in knowing what the disposition was of the various cases and so I will ask you to the best of your recollection, do you recall for example in the Torrington, et al case, what the disposition of those charges were?
Mr. Kwayana: They were dismissed.
Mr. Pieters: In the David Hinds case, do you recall what the disposition was?
Mr. Kwayana: I spoke on that in your absence yesterday. Yes, I do recall. He was convicted.
Mr. Pieters: Was there any…
Mr. Kwayana: He was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court and appealed on the grounds that the weapons had not been produced in Court.
Mr. Pieters: Was there any other WPA activist or members?
Mr. Chairman: Before you get that far, what happened then to the appeal? Carry through so logically, Counsel.
Mr. Kwayana: The appeal has not yet been heard.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this, has the appeal not yet been heard because it is abandoned by the appellant or is it a bureaucratic administrative process that caused it not to be heard?
Mr. Kwayana: I just know that the Hinds appeal has not yet been called so far as I know.
....
Mr. Pieters: You mentioned this morning an activist by the name of Jinah Rahman?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: Jinnah Rahman was a treason accused?
Mr. Kwayana: A treason accused, yes.
Mr. Pieters: Jinnah Rahman got out of the country before the authorities could apprehend him?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes, that is fair.
Mr. Pieters: Do you recall or were you part of the discussion of how he would have been spirited out of the country?
Mr. Kwayana: I saw him before he left.
Mr. Pieters: Was he provided with a false passport or did he leave on a genuine passport?
Mr. Kwayana: He did not leave by the usual means. He left by what we call the back-track.
Mr. Pieters: Okay.
Mr. Kwayana: I imagine.
Mr. Pieters: Your back-track, can you elaborate what form that backtrack would take?
Mr. Kwayana: I did not get the question.
Mr. Pieters: What form this back-track, as you say it is, would take?
Mr. Kwayana: I do not know it personally. It was a back-track that went through Suriname because of the traffic there with vendors going and coming looking for scarce items, you know. So it was a well established thing which we call the back-track.
Mr. Pieters: That there was a disagreement in respect to the means or the violent means within in which the WPA were going to overthrow the PNC government?
Mr. Kwayana: These are things you discuss from time to time. There will always be disagreement, but there was never a decision to use violence to overthrow the PNC government.
....
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Kwayana, what were the signs the WPA was looking for to determine that all other means have failed?
Mr. Kwayana: The signs were applying various means and processes and seeing the results and then studying the social and political terrain to see what else could be done and one of these means included the courts.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this, had the WPA exhausted all other means, who was going to make the call that violence is inevitable and necessary?
Mr. Kwayana: It would have to be the Working People’s Alliance.
Mr. Pieters: And by whom do you mean the collective leadership, Dr. Rodney or the WPA as a whole?
Mr. Kwayana: It will have to begin with the collective leadership, but it will have to go to the WPA as a whole because you cannot go on an adventure like that with a handful of people and the organization does not know what is going on. It is impractical. It is a fancy fairy tale.
....
Mr. Kwayana: The WPA and the PPP went different ways when the 1980 elections were called. At that time Walter Rodney was already away from us.
Mr. Pieters: Well let me ask you this, without the PPP, how could the WPA have gotten rid of Burnham and the PNC electorally?
Mr. Kwayana: I do not know.
Mr. Pieters: And that is your answer?
Mr. Kwayana: That is my answer.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Remember though that the witness had said that this break or going different way between the WPA and the PPP was to quote him, ‘after Dr. Rodney was not with us’ so bear that in mind, the chronology.
Mr. Pieters: Very well, Madam Commissioner. Mr. Kwayana, you know that Dr. Roopnarine, in an article on the 19th September, 2010 stated in the Stabroek News that the party was accumulating weapons long before the murder of Dr. Rodney?
Mr. Kwayana: That question had been put to me in different form and I answered that from my own knowledge, there were, I said two or perhaps three occasions on which members of the Working People’s Alliance were charged with arms. One of them being, Dr. Hinds coming in from the United States and the arms were never presented in court. One you mentioned this morning the treason trial which to the best of my knowledge was dismissed and one was Ohene Koama who was alleged to have been found with a bag of arms in his car trunk, a very small car. Police blocked him off in Roxanne Burnham Gardens on 18th November, 1978 and he was shot. He was not charged. The police alleged that he pointed a rifle at them.
....
Mr. Kwayana: That I had?
Mr. Pieters: An aversion to violence.
Mr. Kwayana: Oh yes.
Mr. Pieters: Would you agree that because of that aversion that you had to violence that, the WPA kept you out?
Mr. Kwayana: That I had what?
Mr. Pieters: Of.
Mr. Kwayana: I am not getting you.
Mr. Pieters: Okay, maybe I should speak in plain language. Mr. Kwayana, because of your disavowance of violence, would you agree that the WPA kept you out of the robust activism activities that involved acquiring walkie talkies for example and ultimately firearms and ammunition?
Mr. Kwayana: We all had an aversion to violence. We all had an aversion to violence and I did not have to be kept in to acquiring walkie-talkies or kept out. It was something that perhaps one or two people did, one of them being Dr. Rodney and after his death, they found a few other walkie-talkies in his house and they searched it, and he was not there and none of these firearms and explosives, and none of these things were found.
12.03hrs
Mr. Pieters: Who else within the WPA collective leadership would you have said was adverse to violence?
Mr. Kwayana: All of us were oppose to violence.
Mr. Pieters: Okay.
Mr. Kwayana: The very Dr. Rodney that you are pinpointing said in an interview with Mr. Carl Blackman in February 1980 in an article, three times, “violence is always regrettable because people are killed and many get injured”- three times in the same interview. So, I do not know who had a passion for violence.
Mr. Pieters: Alright. You recall, let me ask you this about Gregory Smith. Would you agree that Gregory Smith was not a political person?
Mr. Kwayana: He did not sound political to me.
Mr. Pieters: Excuse me?
Mr. Kwayana: He did not sound political to me…
Mr. Pieters: You would agree then that he was not a political person?
Mr. Kwayana: ….from what I read in his book. Yes, I am inclined to agree with that. I cannot swear to it.
Mr. Pieters: We had a discussion earlier about the various nuclei that was formed within the WPA. You recalled we had that discussion earlier this morning?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Part of what is the function of the nuclei was, is vetting prospective members.
Mr. Kwayana: Getting members?
Mr. Pieters: vetting or doing a sort of screening of the members to make sure that they could be trusted?
Mr. Kwayana: I guess so, all branches or nuclei had their own ways of bringing members in and they would bring in people that they trust, for example, they would not recruit someone who is a member of the ruling party to which we were oppose and if in some cases, if there is infiltration, they had to be alert against that kind of thing.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this, you wrote on Page 17 of your statement and I am going to read it. On Page 17 of your statement in respect to Dr. Rodney’s situation, you said, “the bulky robust police station on the its usual site would be visible to anyone driving north in John Street or walking on the western parapet of John Street in the prison block between Durban Street and Bent Street. A would-be-bomber was therefore not attempting his bombing of the prison wall. Assuming to plot to bomb the wall the bomber would be encouraged by the absence of the Police presence and discouraged by the presence of the Police.” You said that, correct?
Mr. Kwayana: Yes, I wrote something to that effect.
Mr. Pieters: You also said earlier that Dr. Rodney was risk-taker and that he would take certain risk that other younger members would not?
Mr. Kwayana: No. I said he was a risk taker and all of us took risk. I did not…..
Mr. Pieters: I am referring to….
Mr. Kwayana: Please, I am still here.
Mr. Pieters: I am testing you on, you have two different statements, you have one on page nine and one on page 17 so and I questioned you on the first statement of a risk-taker this morning and the transcript would be around for examination.
Mr. Kwayana: Yes, we are all risk-takers. You get into that kind of politics fighting a dictatorship is risky.
Mr. Pieters: Let me say this; let me put this to you then. If what you said on page nine is true, then such risky actions by Dr. Rodney and Donald Rodney in the face of armed guards are quite possible?
[Court Marshall gave Witness a copy of a document]
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: … by some risky action of what?
Mr. Pieters: The risky action of going to the Georgetown prison with a device as directed by Gregory Smith in the face of armed sentries being there would be quite possible if Dr. Rodney is both courageous and at that taking risk.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: The device you are referring to is a walkie-talkie or an explosive? I just want to be clear what your question is?
Mr. Pieters: The placebo or whatever it was, the explosive device he had in his possession.
Mr. Kwayana: I think that would be going beyond being risky. I think that would be fool-hardy.
Mr. Pieters: Right and let us talk about fool-hardiness since you used the term and not me. The last time you were at the Commission (May 30, 2014) and I watched it on National Communications Network Inc. (NCN), I watched it on live stream and so, you did a demonstration with a bottle, I believe it was, looking for a red light. Do you remember that?
Mr. Kwayana: Looking for a what?
Mr. Pieters: Looking for a red light. Mr. Scottland….
Mr. Kwayana: Oh, yes, bending over…
Mr. Pieters: …had you doing a physical demonstration.
Mr. Kwayana: That is right.
Mr. Pieters: And first you were going to be looking for a cellular phone and you resorted to a bottle and when Mr. Chairman stepped in.
Mr. Kwayana: Correct.
Mr. Pieters: Yes and this thing about looking for a red light, bending down looking for a red light, did it not seem fanciful to you? Who does that?
Mr. Kwayana: I do not know.
.......
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Kwayana this is my last question to you.
Mr. Kwayana: Sir?
Mr. Pieters: We have dwell into the past, taking a forward look in approach, what would you say to the thousands of young people out there who are following this historic case, what would be your advice to them?
....
Mr. Chairman: I am happy to learn that this is your last question. Perhaps the witness can answer you and let us get on.
Mr. Kwayana: I would advise young people to study first of all and follow the best examples in their communities.
See also Transcript of evidence of Tacuma Ogunseye June 25, 2014;
Transcript of evidence of Dr. Nigel Westmaas June 30, 2014; July 01, 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.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
.JPG)
