THE embattled Kaieteur News was slammed yesterday for references made to a letter penned by Attorney-General and Minster of Legal Affairs, Mr. Anil Nandlall in 2006 – references that suggest that Nandlall has adopted a double standard position. 

The letter addressed the right to privacy following the release of a recorded conversation believed to be between the then Commissioner of Police, Mr. Winston Felix, and the then Vice Chairman of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), Mr. Basil Williams.
In the letter, Nandlall said, “I respectfully submit that, even if the law afforded a right to privacy in Guyana, having regard to the nature of the matters contained in the recorded conversation, and the status and standing of the persons allegedly engaged in that conversation, that right to privacy would have had to bend and bow to the constitutional right to free expression.”
Another local daily, the Stabroek News, also made reference to the 2006 letter.
The references surfaced after the public disclosure of a 19-minuute recording of a conversation alleged to have occurred between a senior reporter from Kaieteur News, Mr. Leonard Gildharie, and the Attorney-General last Saturday, October 25.
The recording was released by publisher of Kaieteur News, Mr. Glenn Lall after he made a report on Monday to Deputy Police Commissioner, Mr. Balram Persaud. Lall contends that the contents of the recording indicate that his life, the lives of his family and staff members are under threat.
LAW PASSED IN 2008
Political observers, however, have since pointed out that Nandlall’s comments were made in 2006, before the passage of the Interception of Communications Act, which was done in 2008.
The Interception of Communications Act Chapter 47:03, Act No. 21 of 2008, which addressed the prohibition of interception (Section 3), states that:
“3(1) Except as provided in this section a person who intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunication system commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five million dollars and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.
“(2) A person does not commit and offence under this section if –
“(a) the communication is intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued by a Judge under section 6;
“(b) the communication is not intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued by a Judge but on the authority of a designated officer in the case of a national emergency or in responding to a case where approval for a warrant is impracticable having regard to the urgency of the case.
“(3) The Court by which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may order that any device used to intercept a communication in the commission of the offence shall be forfeited and disposed of as the Court thinks fit.
“(4) For the purpose of subsection (1), a communication shall be taken to be in the course of transmission by means of a telecommunications system at any time when the system by means of which the communication is being or has been transmitted is used for storing the communication in a manner that enables the intended recipient to collect it or otherwise have access to it.”
While Lall has made his report to the police, there is no information on how the recording was made or how it ended up in his possession. If there were breaches of the law, the Kaieteur News publisher could be looking at a fine of up to $5M or a jail term of up to three years.