London House Chambers founding partner Devindra Kissoon has again been ranked by Chambers and Partners. In rating Kissoon, Chambers stated: “Devindra Kissoon of London House Chambers is praised by sources as a “very, very intelligent” lawyer who produces “excellent work.” His practice covers commercial and constitutional law, with notable experience in matters relating to the mining and telecoms sectors. His highlights include defending the Guyana Revenue Authority in a taxpayer constitutional challenge relating to a tax assessment valued at USD13 million.”

Source: Kaieteur News

In a scathing ruling issued on January 30, 2018, Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George, S.C. deemed Food and Drugs Director, Marlan Cole’s refusal to grant registration of several life-saving drugs to Dr. Balwant Singh’s Hospital, arbitrary, capricious and unlawful, making a previous order nisi being granted absolute.

Balwant Singh’s Hospital, through attorney Devindra Kissoon, filed an application to quash Cole’s refusal to issue an import licence for 18 lifesaving drugs. The application was also to compel the regulator to reconsider those licence applications and for him to provide a list of all new drugs currently being sold in Guyana along with the names of those persons authorised to sell those drugs.

Cole, according to court documents filed by the hospital last August, refused to register the drugs.

The director, the court documents said, indicated he would not register any drugs manufactured in India. He had also initially failed to provide the hospital with the requested list of drugs.

Cole had also rejected all attempts by the hospital to settle the matter without court intervention. Kissoon, a leading commercial lawyer and founding partner of London House Chambers, argued that Cole’s failure to approve the licences or provide the applicant (the hospital) with the list, created an untenable situation. This is because as a major public health provider, it is unable to import drugs necessary for the treatment of its patients.

Worse yet, by its refusal of a list that may be available for sale by licensed importers, the Food and Drug Analyst endangered the well-being of its patients and the applicant’s business operation.

Kissoon argued that the hospital had routinely been provided with lists in the past and issued licences for drugs manufactured in India pursuant to Section 78(2)(k)(v) of the Food and Drug Regulations.

Cole argued that the Food and Drug Administration entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Caribbean Public Health Agency (CARPHA) which implemented a new Caribbean Regulatory System in Guyana, and since those drugs for which applications were submitted were not registered with CARPHA, licences could not be issued.

Cole also argued that he was concerned about consumer safety and stated that he had provided the hospital with the requested list of drugs.

However, in response, Kissoon argued that Cole was deliberately misleading the Court, stating that “list supplied by Mr. Cole is woefully incomplete, in not containing the name of the local suppliers, registration numbers, date of registration, and manufacturer of the registered drugs.”

Kissoon argued that without knowing where to buy lifesaving drugs, the hospital’s patients were at risk.

He gave the example of Naloxone, an opioid antagonist which is used to save the lives of babies who are born with little or no vitals.

Kissoon argued that “to be unable to know where to obtain that drug in Guyana is simply absurd”.

He insisted that this information was routinely provided to the hospital in the past.
The lawyer argued that the CARPHA MOU did not repeal Section 78(2)(k)(v) of the Act, and had no bearing on the matters before the Court. In fact, the MOU stated that it was non-binding.

Kissoon demonstrated to the court not only that the  drugs sought, to be registered manufactured by two of India’s largest and well established pharmaceutical companies (Bharat Serums and VHB Medisciences Limited, and Merck Serono, a multinational company established in 1668 and headquartered in Germany focused on bio pharmaceuticals), but all of the applications contained evidence of safety to human beings and evidence that certification was issued only after documentation was produced about bio availability, bio equivalence and stability.

Kissoon argued that “the Applicant is simply applying for registration of drugs that have already been developed and approved in other various countries. Clinical trials of these drugs have already been completed and approved in the development stage, which may take up to 12 to 15 years for development.

“The applicant is not trying to register experimental drugs or any drug which has not been approved for human use, nor is there any evidence of this in the defence.”
The hospital also alleged that the “respondent continues to arbitrarily and capriciously apply the applicable laws differently to different importers, effectively discriminating against Dr. Balwant Singh’s Hospital.

For example, as evidenced in the attached report published by the Public Procurement Commission in August 2017, the respondent allowed Ansa McAl to import drugs without satisfying the requirements of the applicable laws.”

The Chief Justice (ag) sided with Kissoon, making the orders previously granted absolute, deciding that there has been no repeal of Section 78(2)(k)(v)  and that the CARPHA MOU could not and does not repeal that regulation.

She held that the hospital not only had a legitimate expectation to a licence, but to deny the licence was unlawful. The Court stated that there was no evidence of danger to human life and that the requested lists complete with the requested information must be provided, since the list is a publication within the public’s interest.

She stated that Cole acted unlawfully, unreasonably and capriciously, awarded $200,000 in costs, and ordered compliance within 60 days.

In recent times, there have been accusations of abuse of authority against Cole by not only medicine importers, but food and drinks suppliers.

Kaieteur News was told that the list is “being eagerly awaited” as it would indicate the extent of abuse by the FDA.

Source: Kaieteur News

After almost two years without one, Guyana has reconstituted the Legal Practitioners Committee (LPC).

The committee is critical for persons who want to make complaints against lawyers who they believe would have breached regulations or acted in a manner that is unethical to the profession.

According to a statement of the Bar Association of Guyana, the appointments were made by Chancellor (ag.), Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, of 12 attorneys-at-law as members.

The appointments came after consultations with the Bar Association, it was disclosed.
There have been a number of statements over the non-functioning of the LPC.
The twelve appointed members of the committee are Robin Stoby, S.C.; Rafiq Khan, S.C.; Emily Dodson; Andrew Pollard; Teni Housty; Tracy Gibson; Moenudin Mc Doom; Narendra Singh; Devindra Kissoon; Dionne McCammon; Mandisa Breedy and Faye Barker-Meredith.

The Attorney General, Basil Williams, and the Solicitor General, Kim Kyte-Thomas are ex officio members of the committee.

The members of the Committee will hold office for three years.
According to the Bar Association, the committee will sit in two divisions of seven members each. Division 1 will be chaired by Stoby, S.C. while Division 2 will be headed by Pollard.

The LPC is the body established under the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 4:01 which is charged with hearing and determining complaints against attorneys-at-law. The committee has disciplinary powers.

In brief comments to the committee yesterday at the Court of Appeal, attended also by Kamal Ramkarran, President of the Bar Association and Pauline Chase, Secretary of the Bar Association, Justice Cummings-Edwards encouraged the lawyers to make recommendations for the strengthening of disciplinary powers.

Persons who feel aggrieved against an attorney-at-law can lodge a complaint with the Secretary of the LPC, Jewel Campbell, at the Court of Appeal in Kingston, Georgetown.

Source: Kaieteur News

In a rare and historic legal move, a lawsuit has been filed by activist Ramon Gaskin to challenge the constitutional validity of the State Assets Recovery Act (SARA) recently assented to, in May 2017. Gaskin is represented by  commercial lawyer, Devindra Kissoon.
In the Fixed Date Application, Kissoon cited 37 challenges to the Act, stating that it is unconstitutional, unlawful and void.

It would be recalled that following the May 2015 general elections, the Coalition Government announced that it was establishing the State Assets Recovery Unit (SARU) to go after properties and resources stolen from the people. However, SARU’s power was not covered by any laws, and the administration then moved to introduce legislation.
It was assented to in May, last, however there have been misgivings about the new laws, with some opining that too much power would be in the hands of the State Assets Recovery Agency.

According to the court documents filed, the challenges are centred on a number of key issues, including interfering with the legal professional privilege and the possible violating of a citizen’s right to privacy, by allowing the Director of the State Assets Recovery Agency to access confidential financial information from banks and the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) without a court order.

Gaskin is arguing that the Act does not give a citizen equal protection before the law and there are no requirement to have reasonable grounds to commence investigations.
It is also being argued that the Act violates the doctrine of separation of powers, since it directs the Court how to act in certain circumstances, and even allows ex-parte orders to be granted without procedural safeguards to protect citizen’s interests, or without providing that the orders be limited in duration.

The ex-parte orders seemed to be a major bone of contention, as it is felt that a citizen would not be in a position to cross-examine an officer about the contents of his affidavit to show its unreliability or otherwise.

Another issue that is being raised, Gaskin said, is that the Act also permits proceedings to be filed and heard in secrecy, in violation of Section 144(9) of the Constitution, which requires all civil court matters to be heard in public.

This, in effect, will reverse the burden of proof in criminal proceedings, interfering with a citizen’s right to the presumption of innocence and his/her right to silence and his constitution right of protection against self-incrimination.

Also being challenged is Parliament’s “impermissible” powers of appointment of the staff of the State Assets Recovery Agency; and that of the Minister of Public Security to appoint policemen in violation of Article 212(1) of the Constitution.

Gaskin is also challenging the Act “unlawfully” affords the Director and Staff of SARA absolute immunity for all actions and restricts the amount of damages that can be recovered against them for their conduct.

The Act in its present form has been met by huge criticism from various public interest groups, including the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) and the Private Sector Commission.

For example, the GHRA has previously stated that the “The Director of the State Assets Recovery Agency is effectively a political commissar exercising enormous powers”.
The PSC has noted that the Act “provides all encompassing investigative and surveillance powers to the Director and staff of the agency to snoop around into private accounts and financial records of citizens to determine what assets of the state were lost and need to be recovered. This is a complete affront to the fundamental rights of citizens, and if such powers are granted, they can be used to marginalize, suppress and take advantage of vulnerable members of the population through political intimidation.”

Gaskin, who is also represented by attorney Christopher Ram, in his affidavit noted with concern, various comments made by the State Assets Recovery Agency’s head, Aubrey Retemyer, prior to the implementation of the Act, as a clear indication of bias on the part of official.

The case has been filed against the Attorney General, the State Assets Recovery Agency and the Director of the State Assets Recovery Agency.

The matter is set to continue on August 3, 2017.