Was the PPP playing political games with the Lusignan massacre trial?

Mar 17, 2014 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Nigel Hughes’ statement on his involvement in the Lusignan murder trial demands we, the people of Guyana, must now openly question and attempt to decipher the motives and agendas of the PPP with respect to this Lusignan murder trial.
Hughes asks “Perhaps the people of Lusignan may wish to inquire of the Attorney General and the DPP, why the State, which is responsible for protecting and serving them, would let a self confessed murderer of 33 citizens go free without a single charge.” Why wasn’t Dwane Williams, who is not protected by a plea bargain, charged by the DPP office which has failed to deliver a single conviction related to the Lusignan massacre?
One has to openly wonder whether the PPP was using the Lusignan trial for political points and in particular, points against Nigel Hughes and the opposition, rather than focusing on securing convictions? The PPP ran the Lusignan massacre first because it provides the greatest political benefit to the PPP if it was successful in getting convictions. Lusignan is a pro-PPP community and the entire PPP voting constituency expected no less than a highly publicized trial on the Lusignan massacre.
The PPP also needed a lift from its declining political fortunes and departing voting base, some of whom are disgusted with the antics of the controllers of Freedom House and want nothing to do with the PPP. Nigel Hughes happened to be Chairman of the party that in 2011 took away a sizeable segment of voters from the PPP. Therefore, Hughes was an obvious target.
The Lusignan trial was the PPP’s opportunity to show it can deliver justice to its supporters. Instead, it failed in a cloud of incompetence, strategic bungling and undue focus on seeking political aggrandizement rather than properly laying the unassailable foundation to secure an ironclad conviction. The old, stale and irrelevant Nigel Hughes- Vernon Griffith connection was propagandized as big news post-trial, even when Anil Nandlall had a more recent relationship with Griffith!
The truth is that a DPP office with massive resources at its disposal was out-lawyered by a single man in Nigel Hughes. To hide the egg on its face, the PPP tried to ignore its failure to bring justice to the PPP-supporting Lusignan community and instead tried the con game of tendentious nitpicking and politicking against Nigel Hughes.
Now, the DPP claims there is no plea bargain between it and Dwane Williams, yet for some baffling reason, Dwane Williams, the self-confessed participant in the murder of 33 citizens remains without a charge! There is no greater example of high class and remarkable callousness and disregard for the lives of the citizenry that this fiasco.
This is the kind of justice the PPP believes in delivering to not only its supporters, but to the country at large. It is no different from the kind of crime fighting they deliver to their supporters and the general citizenry who are killed daily in cold blood while the charlatans at Freedom House concoct deals to build Marriott hotels!
The propaganda against Hughes after the trial appeared prepared. The PPP’s unrelenting focus on Nigel Hughes rather than showing contrition for bungling a case and failing to deliver a single conviction to the families in Lusignan was yet another act that convinced the public that in the eyes of the PPP, the Lusignan trial was all about political games focused on one man, rather than bringing justice to dozens of Guyanese citizens, most of whom voted for the PPP. The Lusignan massacre trial highlighted how pathetic and laughable the PPP has made the criminal justice system in Guyana.
There are many questions to be asked. Was this a case of political expediency trumping the resolute pursuit of justice? Why didn’t Nandlall, the Attorney General of Guyana, the overseer of the DPP and as he self-proclaims, the defender of the sanctity of the law of this country, disclose his relationship to Griffith who was also a PPP member like Nandlall?
After all, this was a case of national importance and Nandlall has directing power and authority over the DPP, who has authority over the prosecutors who select members of the jury. What caused Justice Navindra Singh to take the extraordinary steps to ask the lawyers and prospective jury members if they had previous relationships? Did those individuals in the acting Chief Justice’s office who recognized the Hughes-Griffith connection make that recognition before or during the trial?
If they did so, doesn’t the public good, fairness, justice, protecting the administration of justice and saving taxpayers the humongous cost of a prolonged trial necessitate these individuals release this information at the time of discovery? Why didn’t those staff try to determine whether the Hughes-Griffith relationship had long ended before they provided that information to the trial judge?
Griffith, as a PPP member, picketed Hughes when he was counsel in the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Did Griffith himself disclose his prior relationship to Hughes, his recent relationship to the Attorney-General and his PPP membership including his picketing of Nigel Hughes during the Linden COI?
Isn’t a prospective juror’s picketing a defence lawyer sufficient foundation for that prospective juror to not be picked because of inherent bias against the lawyer which then extends to that lawyer’s client?
If there is a duty on a lawyer who is now patently hostile to a prospective juror to disclose a past relationship to that client, why isn’t that duty extended to the Attorney-General of a country who had a more recent non-hostile relationship with that juror?
Did Attorney-General Anil Nandlall know of the Hughes-Griffith association from his prior dealings with Hughes and Griffith and if he did, was he obligated to produce this information in the public interest?
There are burning questions that go to the very heart of this case and to the very heart of the administration of failed and broken justice system in Guyana.
The stench of politicking that seems to accompany this case is dangerous in its own right but it hides an even bigger problem of the comprehensive inadequacy of the justice system in Guyana and its inability to deliver justice to those who are increasingly victimized in a criminalized nation under PPP rule.
 M. Maxwell

---

---