Justice Brassington Reynolds has provisionally ruled that he would not be admitting into evidence a UN expert report on racism in Guyana.On the last occasion both parties had asked for an adjournment so that they could give their arguments on writing for or against the admitting of the document.President Jagdeo is suing for $10 million, claiming that a column entitled ‘King Kong sent his goons to disrupt the conference’ was libelous. The President is claiming that the article suggests that he is a racist and that “by extension, the State and Government of Guyana, practise racism as an ideology, dogma, philosophy and policy.”As the matter continued yesterday, lawyer for the defendants Khemraj Ramjattan, told the court that he was not able to make his written submissions due to the fact that he had “blackout”.Ramjattan said that he was now going to make his submissions orally. First off the lawyer sought to explain that the report was commissioned by the Government of Guyana.He said that it was the same government of Guyana that had checked out UN expert Gay McDougall’s credentials and approved it.According to the lawyer the expert had spent a few days in Guyana and she had compiled the report,Cheap Soccer Jerseys, so she had personal knowledge of what was inside of the document.Ramjattan said that the report was repudiated by the government. It could be downloaded from the UN website. He said that the defence hangs on the Mc Dougall report.“If the report did not marginalize anything they would not have being so bent on trying to let the document be inadmissible”.Anil Nandlall said that under the Evidence Act, evidence is usually admitted because of relevance.He further stated that hearsay evidence is an out of court statement by a person who is out of court.Nandlall stated that while opinion evidence is inadmissible, the law allows for it to be admitted and for it to happen also the lawyer said that the opinion marker has to come to court and deem it fit.The UN expert Gay McDougall visited Guyana between July 28 and August 1, 2008.The independent expert’s visit to Guyana focused on the relations between and comparative situations of Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese. She considered the legacy and impact on communities of an ethnically divided society and ethnic-based politics, and made recommendations to ensure that non-discrimination and equality is achieved through legislation, policy and practice.During her visit, she travelled to Georgetown and surrounding communities. She held consultations with the President, Ministers and other senior government representatives, NGOs, civil society groups,Jerseys Wholesale, political parties, religious leaders,Cheap NFL Jerseys, academics and others working in the field of minority issues and anti-discrimination.According to the report published online,Cheap NFL Jerseys, the independent expert visited communities, including Buxton, and talked to community members about their lives and issues.The report stated that Afro-Guyanese with whom McDougall met, described feeling excluded from having a full voice and stake in the national polity and equal enjoyment of rights in many fields of life including employment and economic participation.They reported stigmatization of young Afro-Guyanese males and entire African communities.As that part of the case was concluded, Christopher Ram,Cheap NFL Jerseys Free Shipping, another lawyer for the defendants started questioning the chief witness on the ethnicity of the chairperson of the Guyana Rice Development Board.Ram sought to get out from the witness if all of the persons elected during the tenure of the president were Indians.Luncheon could not confirm this. There were a number of objections by Nandlall as questions pertaining to this topic were asked.Henceforth Ram further questioned the witness about the luxury housing scheme “Pradoville 2”. The court heard how the Region Ten Chairman, Mortimer Mingo, Professor Compton Bourne, Chief of Staff Gary Best, Home Affair Minister Clement Rohee,Cheap NFL Jerseys, and even the witness himself all own plots of land in the housing scheme.When asked by the lawyer if he could remember any of the Indian landowners, Luncheon said that he could not recall.Luncheon under cross examination said that the land was given by the Central Housing and Planning Authority.He refuted the claim that the house lots were given primarily to Indians.