Attorney-General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, says that Attorney At Law Nigel Hughes’s walk out the Commission of Inquiry was staged and was nothing short of “political theatrics.” Nandlall said that the move was to gain press mileage while seeking to bring the work of the Commission under criticisms as the opposition plan was to misinform the public as to his actual reasons for walking out of the Inquiry hearings.
The AG said that the opposition plan ‘B’ in light of what he deemed as their failures at the Inquiry level has already started with posts, allegedly by Opposition political activist Mark Benschop, on the Internet which saw the most undignified and unprovoked attacks on two commissioners after “Nigel Hughes’ theatrical departure from the Inquiry”.
“What is worst is that I believe that this whole thing and his exit from the commission is one that was orchestrated and preconceived”, the Legal Affairs Minister said as he began to explain his allegation and position in support of the contention that an opposition plan ‘B’ is afoot.
“His side kick Mark Benschop almost contemporaneous with that regrettable exchanges with the Commissioner posted on his internet page a very derogatory statement…about Mr KD Knight and Wolfe…that they were corrupt and things to that effect”, Nandlall informed.
“…Hughes, while he was there said that  he was finished with the Commission but at that time he was still seated in the Commission and had not made  his decision to withdraw from the commission..
“As a result of his consistent and abject failures at the commission, he wanted a way out”
The Attorney-General condemned the joint opposition for seeking to discredit the Commission’s work as he reminded both the AFC/APNU that they too had requested the Inquiry and had a say in terms of those who should and would constitute it.
Hughes’s departure from the Inquiry Commission has sparked more controversy in the public domain with members of the legal and political spheres sharply condemning his demeanour throughout the proceedings. His posture during various sittings of the Inquiry has also been the subject of much debate as the Attorney who is also the Chairman of the Alliance For Change had been reprimanded several times for asking questions which were either irrelevant or unhelpful at establishing the truth surrounding the developments which occurred at Linden on July 18, 2012.
Chairman the Commission of Inquiry (COI) Justice Linsley Woolfe, on Thursday last, intervened into what was an exchange of words between attorney for the deceased, Mr. Nigel Hughes and former Commander of E&F Division Senior Superintendent Clifton Hicken. The chairman sought from Hughes his withdrawal of a statement made.
His move came after a testy exchange between him and the Chairman of the Commission over Senior Superintendent Clifton Hicken, who, during a series of questions said he “could not recall”. When Hicken turned to the Commissioners asking them if he could get permission to…He was interrupted by Hughes before completing his request, who chimed in asking if he was seeking permission “to shoot him (Hughes).”

The Chairman felt the remark “to shoot him” was inappropriate for the COI and urged Hughes to withdraw his statement which he had made a moment ago, but he told the Chairman he could not recollect what he had said and the Chairman then told him that if he does not do so he would not be able to continue cross-examining the Commander.
Commission member KD Knights sought to question Hicken as to the path in which he thinks the Guyana Police Force should use to patch the gap between themselves and the citizens of Guyana.
Justice Cecil Kennard on conclusion of Knight’s presentation to Hicken asked Hughes if he was going to at this time withdraw his statement and he indicated that he will not do so as he had spoken to the relatives of the three families that he was representing and do not wish to continue.

Minutes later as Hicken was asked to stand down, Hughes left the COI and the media representatives followed for a comment as he told the media “I’ve spoken my mind and I’m no longer in a position to be able to adequately provide representation,” he said, maintaining that he had no reason to apologise.
When asked if the interests of the victims would have been better served with him in the hearings, Hughes stated that the evidence produced is available and he was confident that the public and the people of Linden have heard what had transpired and will make their own judgment.