The legal dispute over the management of the Guyana Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha has intensified, with separate court proceedings challenging the operation of the organisation’s court-appointed Interim Management Committee (IMC), while competing allegations have emerged over access to the Maha Sabha’s records, finances and properties.
One matter, brought by the Maha Sabha’s General Secretary, Mahadai Lalu, seeks the removal of attorney-at-law Geeta Chandan-Edmond from the two-member IMC and her replacement.
That matter is set to be heard before Justice Gino Persaud and challenges the manner in which the current IMC has been exercising its court-mandated responsibilities.
According to the legal memorandum filed in support of the application, the IMC was appointed to manage the affairs of the Maha Sabha on an interim basis, including managing its financial affairs, preparing outstanding accounts for audit, creating a membership list and organising and overseeing elections for a properly constituted Executive Committee.
However, the application alleges that the IMC has gone beyond its caretaker role by undertaking substantial works to Maha Sabha properties and making decisions affecting the organisation’s assets, finances and operations.
Among the allegations is that more than $21 million has been expended from Maha Sabha accounts during the tenure of the present IMC, with the applicants questioning the level of consultation, accountability and transparency surrounding those expenditures.
The application also raises concerns over construction and renovation works at the Maha Sabha Ashram, including changes to flooring, windows, the temple structure and other facilities, as well as the process used to select contractors.
It further alleges that the Ashram and temple were closed to the public, restricting devotees from attending longstanding religious observances and limiting access to Pandits who traditionally conducted worship there.
The applicants are asking the court, among other things, to restrain Geeta Chandan-Edmond and Mahendra Mookram from undertaking or authorising further construction, demolition, renovation or alterations to Maha Sabha property. The application also seeks an order replacing Chandan-Edmond with Rodley Mathoo on the IMC.
Separately, Pandit Ubraj Narine has brought a matter before Justice Christel Lambert-Marteens seeking an injunction to prevent the spending of Maha Sabha funds.
That application is separate from the proceedings before Justice Persaud, although both matters concern the authority and conduct of the current interim administration.
Meanwhile, a letter from the law firm Mohabir A. Nandlall & Associates to Mahadai Lalu raises a separate and directly opposing allegation.
The attorneys, acting on behalf of the claimants in the longstanding Maha Sabha matter, say that following the court order appointing Chandan-Edmond and Mookram to manage the organisation, the two assumed their roles and began operating from an office in a Maha Sabha-owned building.
The letter alleges that Lalu subsequently changed the lock on the office used by Chandan-Edmond and Mookram and where records belonging to the Maha Sabha were being kept.
According to the attorneys, the documents inside the office were necessary for Chandan-Edmond and Mookram to carry out the functions assigned to them by the court, including efforts to bring the organisation into conformity with its Constitution.
The attorneys describe the alleged action as unauthorised and say it could significantly interfere with the IMC’s efforts. They further allege that the action amounts to contempt of court because it obstructs Chandan-Edmond and Mookram in carrying out the order made by Justice Persaud.
The letter states that the police were contacted and a report was made concerning the alleged locking of the office.
The attorneys subsequently called on Lalu to cease and desist from interfering with or obstructing the work of Chandan-Edmond and Mookram, warning that failure to do so would result in contempt proceedings.
The allegations contained in the letter represent the position of the attorneys acting for the claimants and are not, in themselves, findings of the court.
The competing legal actions come against the backdrop of a governance dispute that has remained unresolved for years.
The legal memorandum states that the Maha Sabha has not held a General Meeting to elect an Executive Committee in accordance with its rules since 1995, leading to successive court-appointed interim management arrangements aimed at regularising the organisation and eventually facilitating elections.
The present dispute now places several issues before the courts at the same time including who should sit on the IMC, the extent of the committee’s authority, how Maha Sabha funds should be spent, control and access to the organisation’s records and properties, and ultimately the process for returning the organisation to an elected Executive Committee.
Discussion