Templar Chambers is currently advertising for the role of an: Office Manager. Please see below for details.

Term:
Permanent/ Full-Time

Application Deadline: 27th June, 2019

Description:
Successful applicants will have excellent organizational and management skills necessary to ensure that all activities in the law office are running smoothly and efficiently at all times. They will be responsible for coordinating and supervising staff and other activities within the office, ensuring that the firm is adequately and professionally staffed to undertake all necessary activities, perform human resources tasks such as hiring and advertising for new employees, training new staff, managing payroll of employees and office expenses, ensuring all debts and bills are paid by clients on time and accounted for, and other assigned tasks.

Competitive salary package commensurate with qualifications and experience.

Qualifications:
Applicants should preferably have a degree in business studies, management, accounting or equivalent.

All applicants must be fully literate and have an excellent command of English. Applicants must be able to speak and write to a high standard, and conduct themselves professionally, as applicants may be interfacing with international clients.

Key Competencies:
Applicants must be highly organized and efficient in their work. They must be able to multi-task, problem-solve and analyse information. Good communication, administrative writing, Microsoft Office skills are required. Must be IT proficient, professional and have the ability to adapt to a fast-paced environment. They must also be able to work well in teams and in a collegial office environment. They must also be able to work well and manage effectively and calmly under pressure.

Experience:
Minimum 4 years’ experience in a managerial or related role.

How to Apply:

Email your CV and application cover letter to partners@templarchambers.com or deliver it to our office in a sealed envelope before the application deadline. Application deadline is 27th June, 2019.

Georgetown (Stabroek News)

by Dreylan Johnson | August 19, 2017

Attorney Selwyn Pieters yesterday charged that the police had “tunnel vision” while investigating the alleged plot to assassinate the president due to the intervention of Police Commissioner Seelall Persaud, while attorneys for him and the alleged plotter argued that there was no evidence to show that the investigation was less than diligent.

Pieters made the observation during his closing statement to the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) investigating the alleged plot and the police force’s handling of the probe at the Department of Public Service on Waterloo Street.

Pieters, who represented news anchor Travis Chase, the reporter that interviewed Andriff Gillard, who accused his neighbour Nizam Khan of offering him millions to kill President David Granger, charged that Persaud’s involvement in the matter had affected the handling of the case.

He stated that Persaud’s relationship with Imran Khan, the brother of the accused, was prejudicial and a conflict of interest. He added that were the matter handled in any other jurisdiction, Persaud would have been charged with obstruction of justice.

The attorney argued that it is such instances that result in the loss of public confidence and stated that those types of systemic shortcomings can lead to a loss of morale among the ranks.  “…The other side…they try to minimise this conduct. But from where you’re sitting, you’re dealing with public perception of policing. And you’re dealing with the administration of justice… people must know that when there’s an offence that is reported to the police, somebody mustn’t have a friend in [a] high place that could come and derail the investigation,” the attorney stated.

He brought to the commission’s attention the relationship between Commissioner Persaud and Assistant Commissioner of Police David Ramnarine, in reference to what he termed “severe dysfunction.”

“The issue here between Mr Ramnarine as Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Police Seelall Persaud goes to a severe dysfunction in the Guyana Police Force and that’s something not to be taken lightly,” he said.

“He granted the man no professional courtesy. Between March 29th [and] April 2nd, he’s calling all the persons below Ramnarine but does not call Ramnarine. You cannot, sir, in all respectful submissions, look on that very lightly. The Guyana Police Force cannot be allowed to run like that, where you have a Commissioner of Police not speaking to the second in command on very important issues. And listen to what he tells you when he’s cross-examined on why he didn’t speak to Ramnarine. He says, ‘Well, it was a waste of my time,’” he added.

“…Yet he’s speaking to Narine, he’s speaking to Blanhum, he’s speaking to Hicken, he’s speaking to even Imran Khan. And the problem of speaking to Imran Khan is he’s speaking to Imran Khan in the presence of a complainant and other police officers who are below him…,” Pieters argued. “…So if Gillard shows up and he says, ‘Well, the jig was up. It was a cover-up. I don’t expect anything to happen in this case,’ you can’t fault Gillard for that when the Commissioner of Police calls Imran Khan on his cellphone….”

‘False premise’

However, attorney Glenn Hanoman, who represented Persaud during the inquiry, opined that the “very establishment” of the CoI and the terms of reference that stem from it “presupposes” that the police force was not diligent in investigating the alleged plot. He said it also presumes that there were systematic failures in the force and that disciplinary action will be required.

“It is submitted that the evidence received by this commission does not support any presumption that the investigation was less than diligent and that there were individual or systemic failures within the police force. In this case, the inquiry is based on a false premise,” Hanoman submitted.

Hanoman compared the report, made some 21 months after the fact, to a “cold case,” and opined that while he believed it required thorough investigation, there was no urgency attached as there was no crime scene to be preserved or evidence to collect.

Furthermore, he noted that the country’s “premiere” investigations unit was tasked with addressing the matter and not only did the investigation involve all senior officers, but legal advice was sought every step of the way.

“I submit that irrespective of whether Mr Seelall Persaud or Mr David Ramnarine was on duty as the police commissioner, or whether Mr Blanhum or Mr Dass was on duty as the Crime Chief, the investigations were and continue to be diligently and properly conducted,” Hanoman stated.

Addressing what may have resulted in the “false premise” on which he said the inquiry is based, Hanoman made reference to Ramnarine, stating, “The baseless opinions and ill-informed reports by David Ramnarine to the political directorate could evidently result in the perception that something was amiss in the investigations. It is yet to be determined whether those reports were actuated by malice and/or a burning desire to ingratiate himself and diminish others for his personal ambitions, or simply incompetence.”

Speaking on the phone call made by Commissioner Persaud to the Inspector on the night the report was made, which led to the release of the suspect in the matter, Hanoman said that he does not see how the call had any effect on if there was  “failure, neglect or omission to thoroughly investigate.”

He also stated that he does not see how making a phone call or speaking on bail falls within the Terms of Reference of the CoI.

Premature

Attorney Christopher Ram, meanwhile, told the commission that it is regrettable that they were unable to get evidence to identify some of the systemic issues, outside of the matter being investigated. He noted that the investigation is still in progress and opined that therefore the inquiry is premature.

As regards Pieters’ comment on the morale of officers being lost, Ram offered that this can be because of the judgments being passed in the public sphere.

“I believe that this type of initiative may have done just what was not intended. What my colleague said of loss of confidence. Because we had one set of people being pitted against another, I don’t think that helps at any stage,” Ram said.

The Commission’s counsel James Bond was not present during yesterday’s submissions, which Ram called regrettable. Bond had been expected to arrive during the course of the hearing, as was related by Commissioner Paul Slowe.

Yesterday’s submissions marked the end of the CoI’s public hearings. The report of its findings is expected to be presented by the end of this month.

ARTICLE LINK:
https://www.stabroeknews.com/2017/news/guyana/08/19/lawyers-put-top-cop-coi-under-scrutiny/

Attorney Rexford Jackson (Credit: Stabroek News)

Georgetown (Marcelle Thomas). Six persons are claiming lands north of Crab Island, Berbice, where a major oil support facility is to be built but the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GL&SC) says that the swathes in question belong to the state.

The six had raised objections after the GL&SC had invited tenders for the development of the land surrounding the planned oil facility. The six argue that the land belonged to them and they have transports dating back to 1925. An advertisement placed by the group in yesterday’s Stabroek News said, “All lands situate within Lots 1-37 Right Bank of Berbice River; below Crab Island, East Coast Berbice, Kintyre/ Borlam are privately owned. No State Lands exist between the Original Sea Defence Dam and the foreshore of the North Atlantic”.

However, the GL&SC says that the six persons are indeed owners of some transported lands in the area, but that the swathes north of the sea defence belongs to the state as fixed by the law.

As such, the GL&SC is calling on the persons claiming ownership of the lands north of the the sea defence boundary to familiarise themselves with the law and not rush to make spurious public claims of ownership.

‘Inaccurate and misleading’

Following an article in the Stabroek News on March 26th, 2017 that the GL&SC was seeking serious interest for lands surrounding the planned Crab Island onshore facility, Elizabeth Samaroo, Hardat Singh, and Colin Elcock disputed that the lands belong to state and registered their complaints.

Through their attorney, Rexford Jackson, of the law firm Hanoman, Jackson and Associates, the group wrote to President David Granger seeking his intervention and a review of the matter so that the lands they said were in dispute are not sold or leased.

“This sketch plan, that is purported to be reflective or derived from the GLSC stock sheet No.s Zero to thirteen (0-13), is inaccurate and misleading and requires immediate attention and to halt the spread of false information. Most of these tracts, labeled as State Land, actually belong to private proprietors. This essential material fact is being concealed from the public,” another of the six, Patricia Samaroo, wrote to President Granger.

She said that for example, an area labeled as ‘Plantation Lot No.7’ by GL&SC was defined on Plan No. 2198 by a Sworn Land Surveyor since July 1925 and deposited in the Deeds Registry at New Amsterdam in Berbice, on 30th March, 1926.

Samaroo contended that except for Crab Island, and the adjoining lands, the State has no land north of the Sea Defence Dam at Plantations Lots 1-37 on the West Coast of Berbice. “All lands in this area are bounded on the north by the Atlantic Ocean and what is perhaps the largest coastal swamp in Guyana. It is propagated with courida and mangroves, which help to protect us from the fury of the Atlantic Ocean …This swamp is also a sanctuary for birds and serves as a spawning ground and natural habitat for several species of seafood which help to feed this nation. Gone will be the days of the buck crab and the Corentyne black shrimp, which is so desirable. Several correspondence from previous administrations dating back to the British validates undisputed, exclusive ownership of these lands,” she added.

The Number 7 Village, East Coast Berbice resident appealed to the President to “act swiftly and to stop any impending sale” of privately owned lands. One week later, the president replied and informed Samaroo that he had forwarded her letter to Commissioner of Lands and Surveys Trevor Benn, who he said would examine her complaints and respond to her.

‘This is the law’

Yesterday, Benn called in his agency’s Legal Advisor and Manager of Surveys to explain to Stabroek News why the lands being claimed by Samaroo and others are not private but state lands. “This is the law, because all of the lands from the current sea defence to the sea, the Atlantic Ocean…are state lands. Their transported lands are at the back of it. Their transported lands would stop at the sea defence or sea defence reserve,” the legal advisor, Yolanda Lammot, noted.

Survey Manager Rene Duesbury pointed to the Kitty area as an example, saying that decades ago, also, lands were allotted all the way out to the Atlantic Ocean, where the current Kitty Public Road was then called George Street. He said that when the line of defence at Kitty was drawn up, all areas after the line became state lands, what is now known as the Kitty foreshore.

Benn told Stabroek News that while some persons will see the areas designated for proposed leases and development as “just a swamp,” investors who would have submitted proposals yesterday know the potential of the area and will invest.

He also promised that his agency will soon give an update on the proposals it received. Yesterday was the closing date for calls by GL&SC for developers for state lands.

In advertisements in recent weeks, the GL&SC invited offers for the purchase of leasehold interest for a term of 50 years for 22 tracts, numbered one to 22, on the right bank of the Berbice River, just below Crab Island.

Benn had told this newspaper that rather than lease the lands on an application basis, which would entail a longer process, the agency chose to advertise so that individuals or local and foreign companies can bid and submit proposals for development.

“There is a heavy interest in the area and we want to have a more structured way in allocating the land to persons who can occupy, rather than receiving individual applications,” Benn explained.

He said that a public advertisement sells the idea to more persons and a non-refundable $300,000 project review fee could see serious bidders as opposed to those buying and holding for future market purposes.

The GL&SC advertisement stated that persons could have obtained, from its Hadfield Street office, a copy of the sketch plan showing the acreage of each tract and GL&SC standard proposal guidelines, for a $10,000 fee.

In late December, 2016, Minister of Natural Resources, Raphael Trotman announced that government plans to invest in an onshore oil and gas facility at Crab Island, which, when completed, will see the investment of US$500 million and the creation of 600 jobs.

ARTICLE LINK:
https://www.stabroeknews.com/2017/news/guyana/04/29/glsc-rejects-claims-land-near-planned-crab-island-oil-facility/