I WISH to commend the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Ms. Shalimar Ali-Hack for the advice she has given in relation to the tape recording/conversation of Attorney-General Anil Nandlall.
She has advised that there was no breach of the criminal law and that no criminal offence was committed. In so doing, she has upheld her oath of office and has acted professionally. She did not bow to political and public pressure.
Her advice was based upon the law and the law only. I listened to the tape. I did not hear any threat.
What I heard was that if Glenn Lall continues to use his Newspaper as a weapon to destroy the character and reputation of innocent people, those who have no access to a Newspaper will someday use their weapons.
Where is the threat in that statement? Mr. Nandlall was simply referring to an eventuality that may take place in the face of a given reality. After all, employees of Kaieteur News were already gunned down. To date, no one knows why. Thousands of Guyanese hold the same view expressed by Mr. Nandlall.
The law is very clear. A threat must be made to the person against whom it is directed and must be able to cause a breach of the peace. Mr. Nandlall did not speak to Mr. Glenn Lall, so how is it that a case can be made out of threat? In any event, as I said above there was no threat at all, even to Gildharie, with whom Mr. Nandlall spoke. At most Nandalall advised Gildharie to remove himself from Kaieteur News so that if someone decides to retaliate he will not be in harm’s way.
Every day human beings warn each other to remove themselves from certain situations if it is felt that there is any lurking danger. Is the law such an ass to convert those warnings and admonitions into criminal utterances? Unfortunately that is the erroneous perception of the law of some people who bear high academic decorations.
At a minimum, however, one expects better from a legally trained mind. That is why Christopher Ram must be an object of ridicule for the legal profession. His insatiable appetite for public recognition will cause him to do and say almost anything. But then again no one recognises him as any lawyer of worth and by his public utterances he has demonstrated no legal knowledge or acumen, whatsoever.
From my investigations, he has not completed a single case since he was admitted to practice. He always attaches himself to some other lawyer in any case in which he suspects publicity will come. Yet, he has the temerity to criticise the DPP and worst yet, expresses opinions on the law publicly. But then again, fools often wander where wise men dare not thread.
So in the end it was much ado about nothing.
FARUK MOHAMED
