Preserving our literary heritage
Cyril Madray Kanhai 1923 – 1980
By Petamber Persaud
THE better part of his first collection of poems, ‘Songs for a New Guyana’, New Dam, Canje, East Berbice, 1961, was published in his own handwriting – italic handwriting which was very pleasing to the eye and other senses and sensibilities. Such beautiful penmanship developed a fluid conversation, a peculiar intimacy between writer and reader. Cyril Kanhai was trained in italic handwriting, lino-cutting, pottery, stone carving, modelling and art history on his way to obtaining a Teacher’s Certificate from the Brighton College of Arts and Crafts in 1956.

Ten years earlier, he gained his Primary School Teachers Certificate in Georgetown, carting off the highest award offered by the Teachers Training College in the process.

Kanhai started his education at Albion Canadian Mission School, the institution that produced J. W. Chinapen, another poet, potter, painter and educator. There is a possibility that the two met at the same school in a teacher/student relationship.

During the period 1963 to 1964, he studied at the Inter American University of Puerto Rico gaining a B.A. in Art and M.A. in Education.

Apart from being a teacher, Kanhai served the education system of Guyana as Assistant Chief Education Officer – Primary, and Deputy Chairman Teachers’ Service Commission.

Educator, painter, poet, Cyril Madray Kanhai was born in 1923 in Port Mourant, Corentyne, Berbice, going on to make all the correct choices and banding in the right associations during a short but meaningful life.

He played a significant role in the History and Culture Week of 1961, a body that was formed to bring about national cohesion by getting peoples to know each other better through the exhibition of their diverse literary and cultural heritages. He was a part of International P. E. N. – the Guyana Writers Group, fostering national pride through imaginative literature. And he was also the President of British Guiana branch of Italic Handwriting.

Kanhai was a very religious person, clad in Christian Theology from his childhood, as was the case with many Indians at the time, ‘clasped hands we kneel dear Lord this day/for the youths of Guyana to pray/and where’er they may roving be/lead them, dear Father, Home for Thee’.

The choices he made along the way were acknowledged with many awards. In 1954, he won the Bain Gray Medal of the British Guiana Teachers Association, named in honour of the first man to make significant innovations to the local education system.

In 1961, and again in 1962, he won the Burnham Gold Medal for Art. Martin Carter said of Kanhai that ‘some of his paintings have attracted critical attention both in Guyana and abroad’. Ms. Elfrieda Bissember, curator of the National Art Gallery stated that Kanhai was ‘a regular at national exhibitions’. Two of his pieces, ‘Road Menders’ and ‘Green Land of Guyana’, are presently on exhibition at the National Art Gallery under the title ‘Circa 1966’ marking Guyana’s 39th Independence Anniversary.

In 1968, the Guyana Writers Group published, ‘An Anthology of Voices of Guyana’ edited by Donald Trotman in commemoration of International Human Rights Year. Herein, Kanhai’s poem, ‘The Struggle’ revealed that ‘the brightest day is darkest night/for him whose feet are wrought in chain/…the darkest night is brightest day/for him whose feet are free to rove’. Significantly, this collection marking such an occasion featured the poetry of five women of 13 writers.

In 1969, he won the Jagan Gold Medal for literature with his poem, ‘So let us Serve’, filled with patriotic fervour ‘I will work/though my limbs ache…to build my beloved country’. That same year, he released his second collection of poems, ‘My New Guyana’. This was published by Sheik Sadeek who had acquired a printing press and was using it effectively to promote the work of many emerging writers. Sadeek was also responsible for bringing to public attention the work of another Cyril – Cyril Dabydeen.

Martin Carter described Kanhai as essentially a nature poet; Barbados found it appropriate to display his poem, ‘The New Land’, inviting more tourists to the island!

Cyril Kanhai died in 1980, leaving his writings in a number of significant anthologies like in ‘Independence 10’ published by the National History and Arts Council, ‘A Treasury of Guianese Poetry’ edited by Seymour, ‘An Introduction to the Poetry of the East Indian Diaspora’ edited by Kampta Karran and ‘They Came in Ships’ edited by Lloyd Searwar et al.

Sources:
* All the books mentioned in context
* ‘Dictionary of Guyanese Biographies’ by the Seymours.

Responses to this author by telephone # 226-0065 or Email: oraltradition2002@yahoo.com

Fundamental Rights Provision
Judge refuses application to read depositions of absent witnesses
By George Barclay
IN 1968, the Court had laid down guidelines under which depositions of absent witnesses could be read to the jury in criminal cases under Section 95 (1), when it was pointed out that in certain circumstances, the practice could operate to the prejudice of a fair trial.

In the case of Regina versus Edwin Ogle, where the depositions of three witnesses were refused, the Court held that the word 'may' in section 95 (1) of the Evidence Ordinance Chapter 25 is permissive and not mandatory.

Despite those guidelines in that case and other cases, the Courts are being frequented with applications from the Prosecution for the right to have such depositions accepted on every occasion.

In the Ogle case, Chancellor Victor Crane had taken into account the Constitutional law - Fundamental rights provision - and fair trial within a reasonable time.

The facts of the case are that on March 25, 1965, the accused was committed to stand trial at the next sitting of the Criminal Assizes for Demerara for certain offences of forgery alleged to have been committed between August 13 and 26, 1964

Some 12 assizes later, on May 6, 1968, the indictment containing ten counts came up for trial. On his arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty to all the counts.

The prosecution, after opening its case, sought by the usual method to lead evidence with a view to having admitted into evidence the deposition of a witness who was then resident abroad, and had intended to adopt the same procedure with regard to two other witnesses.

Counsel on behalf of the accused objected and arguments were heard in the absence of the jury.

Following the arguments, Justice Crane held (i) the word 'may' in section 95 (1) of the Evidence Ordinance Chapter 25 is permissive and not mandatory;

(ii) in exercising that discretion, a court must look at both sides of the picture.

(iii) under article 10 (1) of the Constitution, it is mandatory that an accused person have a fair hearing within a reasonable time, and when the time is long delayed between committal and trial, the burden is on the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay.

In the present case, no explanation has been proffered for what was clearly a long period of delay.

(iv) when article 10 is read in conjunction with section 71 of the Criminal Law (Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 11, the words "next practicable sitting" of the Assizes means any subsequent sitting at which the Crown can conveniently assign the accused and not necessarily to every next sitting after committal.

(v) taking all the circumstances into consideration, to permit the depositions of the three absent witnesses to be read would operate to the prejudice of a fair trial.

(VI) the most appropriate time to make a submission such as the one under consideration is before the accused is put in charge of the jury, Justice Crane had said, after declaring that the objection by the defence had been sustained.

Following the judge's ruling, the prosecution offered no evidence and an acquittal was directed.

Justice Crane had delivered the judgment of the court. Mr. Claude A. Massiah had appeared for the accused, while Mr. R. Sharma had appeared for the Crown.

After opening the Crown's case, Mr. Sharma sought to call evidence to prove the depositions of a witness who was resident abroad.

Mr. Massiah immediately objected to the course proposed, intimating that what he intended to say would apply equally to the case of two other depositions which the Crown would also seek to prove in the course of the trial. The jury accordingly withdrew.

Mr. Massiah, the brother of Mr. Keith Massiah, then submitted that the depositions of the three witnesses, Gordon, Pugh and Phillips, who are at the moment resident in England and who testified at the preliminary inquiry constitute, as he put it - "the body and soul" of the case against the accused, meaning that the prosecution had no chance of success without them. He referred to section 95 (1) of the Evidence Ordinance, Chapter 25 by virtue of which the Crown sought to put in those depositions, and urged that the word "may" in the subsection gives the Court a discretion as to whether it ought or ought not to admit depositions of witnesses who are out of the country; he submitted that the court is not bound to admit them and that it would be an injustice and prejudicial to the accused to receive them in evidence in the circumstances of this case, notwithstanding the conditions for their admissibility had been observed at the preliminary inquiry.

According to Chancellor Crane, Counsel for the Crown has stressed with vigour that section 95 (1) is specific and that it must be carried out and that no manifest injustice can occur by putting in the depositions. On reflection, however, it appeared that the sub-section does indeed give the court a discretion in the matter.

Justice Crane added: "The word "may" I interpret in a permissive and not mandatory sense, and in the exercise of my discretion I do so in a judicial manner. I must weigh the pros and cons of the application to admit the deposition by looking at both sides of the picture.

"Now, taking this approach as my yardstick, what do I have here? When I looked at the date of committal of the accused for trial, I see that it was as long ago as the 25th March 1965 - just over three years ago. I must, therefore, ask myself what excuse does the Crown have for having kept him so long awaiting his trial, when section 71 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Ordinance, the heading of which reads: "Committal for trial", lays it down that:

"If upon the whole of the evidence the magistrate is of the view that a sufficient case is made out to put the accused person upon his trial, he shall, subject to the provisions of Section 9 of this Ordinance, commit him for trial to the next practical sitting of the Court for the county in which the enquiry is held".

Continuing his judgment, the judge said: "I am fully alive to the probability of the ruling of mine being cited as a precedent at Assizes in the future whenever it is sought to have depositions of witnesses abroad read in evidence. It is however, a decision which turns on its own peculiar facts.

However that may be, the course taken by each judge must always vary with the exercise of the individual discretion, and will be entirely dependent on the facts of the particular case.

"I am also alive to the probability that the Crown may be forced to offer no further evidence following on the course which I intend to take, but I have no regret whatever taking it, feeling as I do, that were I to permit the depositions of the three absent witnesses for the Crown to be read in the circumstances of this case, it would operate to the prejudice of the accused to have a fair trial", the judge enphasised.

Following the ruling of the judge that the objection was sustained, the prosecution offered no evidence and an acquittal was directed.