TO MANY, Nigel Hughes is a good lawyer. To some, he may even be considered great. Time and time again, he has successfully defended the indefensible. His ability to get favourable verdicts are not in dispute here. His integrity and moral values are. Most of the characters that Nigel Hughes defends are nothing more than common criminals, drug dealers and provocateurs. And if he can further build his reputation by defending those hostile to the Administration, he would willingly do so pro bono.

I’m fully aware that this is the nature of his profession. However, when a man or woman enters politics, and runs for political office, she or he gives up the right to a private life. My critical analysis of Hughes is nothing personal; it is fair game to examine his real motives, and to separate the man from the myth. For, despite the popularity of his name, Nigel Hughes is sadly lacking in the ethics department. He is not the man to be in any leadership role of any political party, nor the Guyana Bar Association.
Jury tampering and witness intimidation are nothing new to the legal system. In Guyana, not only can jurors be bought off, but magistrates too. An entire court docket can disappear for the right price. The clerk is usually the middleman that accepts the bribe to protect his boss, the magistrate. Often, the payoff is equal to the bail money that was lodged when the accused was given bail. There are many cases that have never been brought to trial because of this and witness intimidation.
Making court records disappear for 11 murdered victims however, is almost impossible even by Guyana standards. So it would certainly help the defense if a juror or two can be persuaded to overlook the evidence presented by the prosecution. One can therefore draw an inference that this is easier done than causing those dockets to disappear.
Was there a conspiracy involving Defense Lawyer Nigel Hughes, Juror No.12, and the Juror Foreman? How else is it possible for a ‘not-guilty‘ verdict to be rendered by a jury, freeing two accused after hearing incriminating testimony from a man who testified to taking part in the killings with them? How could Hughes and the Juror Foreman not remember having an attorney/client relationship for six long years prior?
A civil motion for wrongful dismissal (action number 806-W 2002): Vernon Griffith vs NBIC (now Republic Bank) was filed in the High Court on December 30, 2002. Vernon Griffith, the Juror Foreman in the Lusignan massacre trial, was represented by the law firm Hughes, Fields & Stoby of which Nigel Hughes is a senior partner. This case concluded on October 29, 2008. Now let us fast-forward to the present.
After the Jury brought in a ‘not guilty’ verdict against James Anthony Hyles, known as ‘Sally’ and Mark Royden Williams, called ‘Smallie’, both charged with the slaughter of 11 innocent human beings (including 5 children) in Lusignan as they sleep, it was discovered that the Juror Foreman failed to inform the court of his 6 year-old relationship with Nigel Hughes, the lawyer that represented James Hyles. After this revelation, the trial judge, Justice Navindra Singh inquired from Juror Foreman, Vernon Griffith why he did not come forward with the information when the court was going through the process of eliminating jurors. Griffith in response said that he did not see it as a problem, since he did not know the lawyer personally. Hughes, on the other hand, said he did not remember knowing Vernon Griffith period. This ridiculous statement is at best ludicrous. Let us examine Hughes’ explanation. In an email sent to the Stabroek News, Hughes said, “It is impossible for me to remember all the clients I have. For my current clients I have to check our records electronically for conflicts. There are several lawyers in our chambers and it is almost impossible to keep an accurate record of who we would have represented in 2003 and 2008.”
Under normal circumstances, that explanation may been accepted, but Hughes was the one who led Vernon Griffith in evidence during the 2002 civil motion he brought against NBIC which lasted for 6 years. Nigel Hughes conducted the entire trial by himself. Furthermore, all court documents were signed by Nigel Hughes. These include: The Writ of Summons; A Statement of Claim; A Notice of Default of Defense; An Extension of Time; A Notice for Request of Hearing; and A Notice to Produce. So unless Nigel Hughes suffers from the dreaded Alzheimer’s Disease, it would appear that his memory of not knowing Vernon Griffith, is deliberately flawed. Perhaps with the hope of gaining a critical advantage during the Lusignan trial.
Because of all the publicity, and public outcry the Lusignan massacre generated, the learned trial judge embarked on an exceptional course of action, not usually done in other trials. After the Jurors was empaneled, he held an enquiry and asked very specific questions of each juror to ascertain if any of them knew or had a relationship with any of the deceased or their relatives. Justice Singh also enquired specifically if any of the Jurors had any relationship with any of the lawyers involved in this case. As Vernon Griffith responded to these specific questions, Nigel Hughes stood silently, knowing fully well that his former client was lying.
Juror No. 12, Compton Elgin, also appeared to have had some contact with the father of the accused killer, James Hyles. A complaint was made by counsel for the prosecution, Mrs. Judith Gildharie-Mursalin, in the presence of both Defense Attorneys, Mr. Roger Yearwood and Mr. Nigel Hughes, that Juror No. 12, Compton Elgin was seen in conversation with a man, and it was observed that the juror Elgin had shown the said man the thumbs up sign with both hands. That man was subsequently identified as the father the accused, James Anthony Hyles, the man Nigel Hughes defended. This is nothing less than a travesty; a miscarriage of justice.
In Part 2 of this letter, I will expose Nigel Hughes racial bias, and my call for him to be reprimanded! Stay tuned.