Only Mr. Nandlall, not the AG and legal practitioner, knows the answers to these questions
I observe the Attorney General of Guyana, Anil Nandlall, SC, MP, and marvel at his seeming flexibility. The AG may have conducted a self-assessment, and concluded that he is a local constitutionalist of the first water. A man of the law, I think is how he sees himself, and not of tawdry politics, having nothing to do with its mesh of entanglements. Yet, from his own attitudes, words, and postures at different times, I detect a man of great fluidity where consistency is concerned. To paraphrase Robert Bolt in A Man for all Seasons, at work are principles of a seafaring kind, meaning, that there is a certain nimbleness attached to them.
In 2016, there was a matter involving a luminous citizen of Guyana by the name of Carvil Duncan, head of the Public Service Commission at the time. There was a court case involving an alleged fraud, with Mr. Duncan as the named principal. First, it was said that President Granger tried to force Chairman Duncan to resign from his constitutionally protected office, offered an incentivizing exit package, and when neither found favour, promptly sent him on leave. To add vinegar to the occasion, this action by the President took place while there was already a Tribunal in place to advise on whether Chairman Duncan was fit and proper to remain in office, or that he should be given the boot.
At the time, Mr. Nandlall, who had held very high legal standing in the previous government, was beside himself with righteous indignation, and unleashed a verbal bombardment on the head of Guyana’s head-of-state, David Granger. Mr. Nandlall pointed to Article 94 of the Guyana Constitution and unhesitatingly let loose with a blast: it was that President Granger had committed an egregious breach of the Constitution. He all but shouted for the President’s impeachment, since his ‘constitutional heresy’ threatened the fabric and workings of this country’s democracy.
The media coverages that I came across captured Mr.Nandlall at his fulminating best: “the president has flagrantly violated the letter, spirit, and intent of some of the most sacrosanct constitutional provisions…Presidents…have been impeached for far less in democratic countries.” I do not think that that could have been better said, or said more powerfully. There was suitable awe, applause. Thanks, brother
Nandlall for what I am interpreting as a heartfelt position in, and sterling contribution to, the struggle for immaculate governance in this country.
Now, I fast forward to the present, and point to the matter involving President Ali’s suspension of the members of the Police Service Commission (PSC), including its Chairman, Mr. Paul Slowe. The High Court ruling, in the words of Justice Gino Persaud, was that the President’s decision was “unlawful, unfair, and….” Judge Persaud went on to say that President Ali’s action was “in contravention of Article 225 of the Constitution…” Of interest, was the point that since there was no PSC in place, no tribunal could have been appointed.
When that recent ruling was handed down, I watched and waited on Guyana’s AG, the same Anil Nandlall, SC, MP, to ascertain which way he would go. I am disappointed to report that the fiery Anil Nandlall of October 2016, has since been overtaken by the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and know no evil, where the action of his President is concerned re Chairman Slowe et al. The long and short is that an appeal to the ruling has since been signaled.
Where did the earlier brother Nandlall disappear to, he of high volume and prodigious rhetorical intensity on the always burning issues of constitutional violation and presidential impeachment? What about the hitherto sacrosanct constitutional provisions, have they lost some luster with my dear friend, Mr. Nandlall? Sorry; I forgot my place for a wee moment; but has the Hon AG lost his appetite for holding together the fabric of democracy and its institutions? Where is he today on possible impeachment when there is a ruling to this effect? Perhaps, he prefers to exhaust appeal processes.
Only Mr. Nandlall, the man and citizen, not the AG and legal practitioner, knows the real answers to those simple questions. I think that he is more comfortable today to exercise his right to silence; constitutionally provided for, naturally. I leave my brother and fellow Guyanese with this other beauty from Robert Bolt’s A Man for all Seasons:
“When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.” Farewell, honourable son of Guyana.