A critical look at the Attorney General

Jun 07, 2018 Letters

Dear Editor,
For the umpteenth time the Attorney General has lost a decision in court. Not that he was expected to win against Anil Nandlall in the matter of bringing the Judicial Review Act in effect.
While the AG threw in the white towel in defence of matters that people in the judicial fraternity had considered as winnable , against BK International , DDL ; matters that will require over $80 billion to be paid from the treasury.
The AG appears to be a habitual loser much to the consternation and embarrassment of the coalition and the president whenever he chooses to put up a defence. Is it that the AG lacks the concept of the principles that constitute right and wrong in law? I think not.
I am more inclined to believe that it is plain arrogance by the AG- a belief that being in power he must have his way. Threats to a Judge and questioning the recent decision of the CJ in the recent JRA case are testimony of his disposition.
Being a lawyer, the AG should know that winning cases is not about intimidation and bullying. The CJ analyzed the case, did her summation and give her decision. The general public perceives it to be fair; the AG became distraught.
Part of the CJ’s summation revealed that the said AG was involved in the enactment of the judicial Review Act while on the bench of the opposition in 2010 and had lauded it as a good piece of legislation for the people of Guyana to challenge the excesses of power by Government officials.
Now in power, and entrusted to bring the JRA in effect he finds it politically convenient to keep it on ice. It is funny how roles changes mindset in politics!
One of his contentions is that the PPP’s failure to bring the JRA into effect after it was passed in parliament in 2010 to 2015, gives him the liberty to detain it. He feigns knowledge that the act “could not be implemented because it had to await the new rules of court (new Civil Procedure Rules) providing for public law applications, which were implemented in February 2017.” The CJ made it clear that the JRA and the CPR goes hand in hand in her summation.
Another of his contention is that he needed more time for more consultation on a legislation passed in parliament eight years ago, which he had personally lauded then, as being good for the citizenry, to be brought up to date to international standard.
Obscene! What the AG would not contend is that based on international standard, when a legal counsel for the state failed to defend the treasury as often as he did or tried to subvert legislation that allows the citizen to hold Government officials accountable for their actions, they are asked to tender their resignation.
President Granger, for all the embarrassment he suffered as a result of misdirection of the AG, which the CJ had pronounced on, should at this time break his silence. He should show the public that his Government still believes in the rights of the citizen to hold their elected officials to account, the essence of the JRA and the theme that won him the votes in the Coalition’s campaign.
He should ask for the resignation of the AG, rather than to ask the AG to appeal the decision of the CJ that compels the AG to bring on the JRA before July 31st.
Citizen

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News