Some of Nandlall’s colleagues enriched themselves

Mar 17, 2017 Letters

Dear Editor,
When, reading for the Bachelor of Laws degree (LLB) at UWI there is an optional course or subject called “Law of Trusts”. Many students opt not to take it because it is not as easy a course as say Administrative Law. Having read Anil Nandlall’s two contributions in KN, Monday, March 13, 2017 under Caption “The SOCU exercise is not law based but politically driven”; and, “Every Guyanese should pay market value for land if Pradoville 2 recipients have to,” I wonder: did student Nandlall opt not to study the Law of Trusts.
But assuming he did, he has been a practicing lawyer long enough to be sufficiently acquainted and familiar with certain legal principles (here I avoid any technical distinction between the juristic phrases – at law, or, in Equity) fundamental in the law of trusts as applicable in other spheres of law e.g company law, Law of Succession; Attorneyship etc viz (1) principle of fiduciary relationship (ie of trustee and beneficiary) between government minister and other high ranked government officers (as trutees); and the Guyanese people (as beneficiaries) whom they are elected or, appointed (as the case maybe) to serve; (2) unconscionability; one example being unjust enrichment (ie using one’s public office to unjustly or improperly enrich one’s self).
This one is not fundamental but as a former Attorney General he must have acquainted himself with the principle of misfeasance in public office resulting from misuse/abuse of such office; (this is both a civil wrong (ie what lawyers knows as tort) redressable in civil court; and, a crime punishable in a criminal court). It is for the government to elect as to which process as between civil and criminal best serves the public interest. The DPP has no jurisdiction in the civil court (only the Attorney General has on behalf of the Government).
How then can he write such rubbish as suggest that there is no basis in law; and to put “every Guyanese” on the same footing, or in the same boat, as those Ministers or other high ranked officers who by reasons of their taxes-paid-by jobs become fiduciaries to the people and so, both at law, or in Equity are not permitted to use the facilities of their office to unjustly enrich themselves. Here, are his own words – “it is my firm belief that the SOCU questioning of former PPP Ministers and former President Jagdeo has nothing to do with law and the administration of justice… I have advised that every arrest and detention be legally challenged for compensation… the Law and the legal process must never be used as a political weapon…” And, here is some of his reported diatribe “… there is no law preventing anyone from receiving subsidy for lands bought from the government and he is baffled as to why there should be a different approach to the Prado Ville 2 recipients… should his PPP/C colleagues be made to pay any additional cost for those lands, then every Guyanese that bought house lots form the government past and present should be made to pay the market value as well…”
First of all, if you comprise the Government, then you are not in a position of “receiving subsidy;” rather you are in a position of appropriating fairly, or misappropriating such subsidy; his PPP/C colleagues were able to pay less (inordinately less) than the market value because they were in a position of governmental authority and they misused and abused that position of authority to decide for themselves, or caused to be decided in their favour, what they should pay, and paid.
Refusal of an imprudent offer is, was, always an option. The “every other Guyanese” category, distinguishable from his ministerial colleagues as day is from night, are entirely on a different legal, equitable or other footing – they, had no choice but to pay what those very “PPP/C colleagues” directed (Cabinet or otherwise); that they pay. Indeed, “Other Guyanese” has no fiduciary duty.
Second, some of his colleagues, we are told, have unjustly (further) enriched themselves by sale (in breach possibly of the conditions of acquisition; and law) of the said property at selling price (which even after making due allowance for the development of the land by the building erected thereon) would be inordinately disproportionate to the acquisition costs. If this is not an abuse of office, nothing is; and what to a private person would make sound business practice and sense would be, if done by one in public office, a misfeasance. I will have more to say on this in another submission to your paper
Maxwell E. Edwards
Attorney-at-law

Latest News

Some of Nandlall’s colleagues enriched themselves

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | February, 3rd, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Corbin century, fast-bowlers give CCC lead as champs face stern Day 3...

Powerlifting to kick off year with...

North Essequibo cart off ECB Busta-sponsored T20...

Construction progress of five New Stadiums,...

Inclement weather forces BCB to halt cricket...

EBDCA/D&R Construction 40-Over Cricket...

Features/Columnists

What Guyanese leaders can learn from Donald Trump

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

VP Jagdeo on PPP comrades benefitting

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Some of Nandlall’s colleagues enriched themselves

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | February, 3rd, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]