Anil Nandlall is scandalizing the Attorney General

Apr 08, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Permit me to continue from my previous letter to Mr. Nandlall’s scandal about threat to the judge’s life, which but for the public outcry which his scandal has engendered, would be simply laughable. Are we to believe that the learned AG suddenly went berserk and threatened the High Court Judge with death, not in some private telephone conversation, but in open court in full view and hearing of others? And how? By simply recalling and recounting a similar experience with a Magistrate, now dead about the accuracy of the recorded evidence?
How is death to be? By voodoo? In my by-stander’s view, a tangled web of deceit is being weaved. Mr. Nandlall’s consistent vulgar abuse (in both print and electronic media) of this AG is a notorious fact. This is just another episode in Mr. Nandlall’s playbook as he practices to deceive. Besides, how curious that Mr. Duncan’s Counsel (Mr. Nandlall) has a fetish with threats. Readers must recall the infamous tape recording of Mr. Nandlall (AG at that time) in a telephone conversation with Kaieteur News reporter – Leonard Girdhari issuing gun threats against KN. And recall too that similar death threats allegations were made against His Excellency President David Granger by another PPP aligned lawyer – Mr. Charles Ramson (Jnr) then representing Mr. Duncan.
Casualty (that is the AG) apart, the irony of the matter should not be lost sight of: it is the AG who would constitutionally have the burden of representing any Judge against whom (it is not inconceivable or farfetched) legal proceedings maybe taken, ex officio. And what if in such an event the presiding Judge in that case appears to be lax in recording vital evidence elicited by the AG (in cross examination as appears to be the situation in the instant matter) on behalf of the Judge he is representing.
A case can be lost by such laxity. Discrepancies (and inconsistencies) in a witness evidence affect their weight and value. I suspect and would suggest that the learned AG is demonstrating the type of zeal in his advocacy in this matter, as is commensurate with the gravity and seriousness of it; involving as it does, not only the probity of the official constitutional act of the Honorable Prime Minister; but also that of His Excellency the President, coupled with the political opprobrium, loss of his case portends. Unwittingly, the Judge by the unusual course he has taken in this matter would be suppressing a method of advocacy which he considers rightly, or wrongly, disrespectful, which involves both the Prime Minister and the President. Surely, such exceptional circumstance cannot be lost on the Judge. And, he appears now, to have mistakenly persuaded himself that a criminal contempt has occurred.
I am reminded that just some such mistaken persuasion occurred in the Maharaj case supra, when the lawyer had accused the presiding Judge of “unjudicial conduct”; the Judge had charged and tried the lawyer and committed him to prisonfor contempt for such utterance, and that the Privy Council in spite of their Lordships being of the view that the Lawyer had acted “discourtesly” towards the Judge, ruled in favour of the lawyer and awarded him damages (i.e. money). And just consider that in this Justice Franklin Holder matter the “egregious statement” is not even (as I have pointed out above) any accusation made against the Judge.
As devil’s advocate, I would say this: I have written with the benefit of the AG (then a junior Counsel) being a frequent appearer in the Courts in which I presided. He can be as assertive in the pursuit of his client’s cause, (the common lawyer’s characteristic) as he can be conversational in his disarming humour (a rare virtue).
And finally, about apology and the intimation of the Judge that in the absence of such (as reported) “he will not sit to hear him as an Attorney-at-Law in any matter whatsoever”. I dare say that such a course portends a constitutional crisis between the Judiciary and the Executive branches of government. The AG has a constitutional right and duty to appear and be heard on behalf of the state, and its officers. That right is grounded in the constitutional doctrine of public interest. That constitutional right cannot lightly be denied him.
I wonder whether by the events which has happened in this matter the Judge has not unwittingly disqualified himself from any further hearing of this matter. But the laws of contempt of court (Cap 5:05 – as an existing law) which one day may require serious consideration as to its constitutionality (unless interpreted with necessary modifications, adaptations etc) in terms of article (144) (1) and (2) of our Constitution as to “fair hearing”, cannot be used to suppress a method of advocacy which the Judge considers “disrespectful”. And no worthy AG can be expected to compromise his well settled Common Law right against self-incrimination, if the effect of an apology, would be to lead to a perception that he is guilty of some serious wrong. He is not.
Maxwell E. Edwards
Attorney-at-Law

---

---