Dear Editor,
Assume that your child received physical injury after being given a sound spanking by a Prefect for arriving late at school one day. In defense, the Prefect said he was instructed or permitted to do so by the Head Teacher (HM). Even if the HM did confirm that reprehensible arrangement, the HM could be easily sanctioned by the Education Ministry with resulting disciplinary action being taken against the Prefect for inflicting such punishment that caused your child physical injury. If it became a Police matter, charges of Assault causing actual or grievous bodily harm could be filed.
In juxtaposition with the cited Prefect, the former Attorney General has implicated a former President as the giver of permission under some ‘oral’ agreement for him to be the beneficiary of Law books purchased with state funds.
The Law books in question are (14 of) 15 Commonwealth Law Books/ Reports, paid for by the Ministry of Legal affairs (with YOUR tax-paid dollars) to the tune of almost $2.5 Million from 2012 to 2015. The supplier was a UK publisher.
The Law books were declared missing from the Legal Affairs Library when the APNU/AFC Government assumed office in May 2015. Subsequently, the former Attorney General,Mr. Anil Nandalall declared that the 14 Law Books were in his possession. The 15th Law book, which was already paid for in March 2015, was received from the UK supplier in June 2016 and is now in rightful safe keeping of the Legal Affairs Library.
Controversy surrounding the custodian and ownership of those law books escalated after it became the subject of two main findings in the report of a Special Audit conducted by the Auditor General in January 2016. The Auditor General’s report was satisfactory, but contained a flaw; a flaw relevant to storekeeping procedures. The Auditor General’s report suggested that the Law books were not subject to storekeeping procedures. However, Section 18 of Store regulations of 1993 notes that “All goods purchased shall be taken to the store and shall be subject to store keeping procedures outlined in these regulations”. “The storekeeper shall make entries in the Goods Received Book in Form 4 and shall prepare goods received notes in Form 2, with appropriate remarks”
Based on a response to the Auditor General’s report from the Ministry of Legal Affairs, the Law books in question were not taken to the Stores nor subjected to the relevant storekeeping procedures. They were instead delivered directly to the former Attorney General,Mr. Nandalall, in direct contravention of the Stores Regulations.
Although the Law books were indisputably purchased with public funds, it must be noted that the findings of the Special Audit exposed an apparent breach in the payment procedure where the purchases were not done in accordance with such procedures governing the Fiscal Management Accountability Act of 2003. Such breaches raised suspicion that there may have been a collusion with, or circumvention of, the Head of the Budget Agency. The Ministry of Legal Affairs in its February 2016 response to the Auditor General also noted that it has no evidence of this (Law books) agreement between former Attorney General Mr. Nandalall and former President,Mr. Donald Ramotar.
It was based on the foregoing that the matter was given Police attention. Police action further intensified after the breach of a gentleman’s agreement by the former Attorney General to return the Commonwealth Law books. Criminal charges were then filed against him. All other facts and details will most likely unfold during the judicial hearings. In this regard the citizenry should exercise greater patience and try to appreciate the intricacies of such investigations.
It is fair to say that the Police did not act ‘Ultra vires’ or above and beyond its powers by arresting Mr. Nandalall, as some seek to suggest through various missives. Mr. Nandalall held an entrusted position of the state and clearly abused the privileges and fiduciary responsibility so vested upon him by misappropriating the state’s assets (Law books bought with YOUR tax dollars) to his own use. The fact that Mr. Nandalall took the Law books discretely, without permission of the state, is a form of embezzlement and has resulted in the charge against him in the form of “Larceny by Bailee”.
It is also fair to say that slothfulness of some officials in handling this and other matters seem to be manifest in them taking “an abundance of personal and juridical caution”, or by overwhelming intimidation of some who still wield fear and power,thereby causing timidity in decision making by those now vested. From whichever angle one wishes to view this issue, in the discourse of common law jurisdictions, the principle of open justice is most frequently expressed in the form of an aphorism (pronouncement) attributed to Lord Chief Justice Hewart in his judgment in Rex v Sussex Justices Ex parte McCarthy 1923: (quoted) “It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” (End of quote).
Regards
Orette Cutting (Mr.)