A REJOINDER from Attorney General Anil Nandlall has dismantled the criticism of comprehension of the political Opposition’s plans relative to private property ownership and constitutional reform advanced by Raphael Trotman.

In local reports published yesterday, Trotman, co-chairman of the APNU+AFC campaign, charged that Nandlall, under whose purview as Legal Affairs Minister these matters fall, was not an expert in his field.

The Attorney General has rebuffed Trotman assertion, and has underscored the fact that Trotman did not address his contentions, but opted to attack the messenger – an inability of sorts to articulate a defence.

“Raphael Trotman has committed the classic error of addressing the messenger (instead of) the message. One does not need to be an expert in any field in order to read and understand what is written in plain English. Perhaps Trotman needs an expert to do that because of some disability on his part. I am not so circumstanced,” Nandlall told the Chronicle in an invited comment.

He added that comments made by Trotman himself validate his contentions. “In any event, (Trotman) confirmed that my interpretation is correct by alluding to the fact that private property will be seized by the APNU+AFC alliance if, in its opinion, it was not fairly acquired. Trotman defined the term ‘fairly’ to mean legally and judiciously. Therefore this learned person exacerbates the situation by telling us that the Executive will determine whether property was acquired legally and judiciously. The implication and ramification of what he concedes simply eludes him,” Nandlall said.

The Attorney General added that other ‘criticisms’ from Trotman were wholly irrelevant. “As regards the bypass of the Court of Appeal, again Trotman does not understand the point I made. He responds by saying that the current Constitutional Court is deficient. That is wholly irrelevant to my contention, which is taking out of the legal system one of the two appellate courts.

“It is really shocking how these simple issues elude a legally trained mind,” Nandlall stressed. He added, “It is ironic that Trotman chooses to reply, but in his response said not a word about the repeal of the Recall Legislation. It is ironic because that is the legislation that the PNC brought to the Parliament to recall Trotman when he joined the AFC but continued to sit on a PNC seat in Parliament.”

The exchange follows a peripheral examination of certain portions of the political opposition’s plans for the future, and consequent criticisms from Trotman on Friday.

Nandlall quipped that the manifesto reads like a “Walt Disney fairytale,” as opposed to a real vision for the future of the country and the Guyanese people.

“Other portions are riddled with inconsistencies, (and) legal and constitutional impossibilities. Indeed, they have hatched up some solutions to problems which they themselves have caused, while they are promising to do things that have already been done,” Nandlall said of the manifesto being advanced by the APNU+AFC alliance.

SIEGE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
Nandlall lamented that the 46-page document details “frightening statements” that should make the Guyanese people wary of the political Opposition.

He said, “At page 12, the following frightening statement appears: ‘Rights to personal property will be protected where the asset has been fairly acquired’. The seeds are being sown for the expropriation of private property if, in the opinion of the partnership, it has not been ‘fairly acquired’.”

The Attorney General declared that this is a “threat” to personal property everywhere, and makes every statement in that manifesto about the Rule of Law and about the Bill of Rights ring hollow.

“The coalition is saying to the Guyanese people that they will determine whether persons acquired their property ‘fairly’; and if, in the opinion of the coalition, the property was not ‘fairly acquired’, then it is liable to be seized. This is constitutional anarchy being prescribed,” he opined.

Reiterating his warning, Nandlall contended that every Guyanese should take cognisance of the dangers in the APNU+AFC proposal and make the nexus with the plans, policies and legislative moves advanced under the former People’s National Congress (PNC) regime, which is the coalition’s majority partner.

“It will be observed that there is no reference to the rule of law or the constitutional right of the citizenry to be protected against compulsory acquisition of their property by the State.
The previous PNC administration has compulsorily acquired hundreds of private properties from citizens; in particular, from those who were opposed to the regime, paying no compensation to those persons.

This authoritarian assault on the constitutionally enshrined right to own property must be carefully noted by the electorate. At a minimum, the coalition has been decent enough to forewarn the population that private property will no longer be safe,” he said.

BIZARRE PROPOSALS
On the matter of constitutional reform, another area under Nandlall’s purview, he underscored the fact that some of the promises being made are actions already taken by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

“They propose the establishment of a Constitutional Reform Committee. We already have such a Committee, for several years now. Indeed, Mr David Granger is the Chairman for the last three years, and that Committee met not more than three times in those three years under his chairmanship,” Nandlall said.

The Attorney General dubbed APNU+AFC’s plans in this area as bizarre, citing the party’s proposal for appeals from the High Court to go directly to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in certain constitutional matters – a move that would bypass the local Court of Appeal.

He questioned, “No explanation whatsoever is offered for this most weird procedure; what sinister motive do they have for ostracizing an important link in the hierarchical chain of our Judiciary? Why this vote of ‘no confidence’ against our Guyana Court of Appeal?”

Nandlall added, “The rule of law is being undermined…At one time, the PNC flag was flown in its compound. At that time, it was at the apex of the Judiciary. Now the nation witnesses another proposal to emasculate this most vital cog (the Court of Appeal) in our judicial wheel.

“Recall, that they abolished the Privy Council from our Judicial System in 1970, leaving the citizens with only one opportunity and one forum at which a High Court decision can be challenged.

“Forty-two years after, by effectively removing the Court of Appeal from the appellate process, they are proposing the very same thing; ie: leaving the citizen with only one forum to which a High Court decision can be appealed, the Caribbean Court of Justice. The rule of law is being undermined.”

COMICAL PROMISES
Reducing the immunities of the President was another of the APNU+AFC proposals that caught the AG’s eye.

“The immunities of the President have already been reduced in the 2001 Constitutional Reform Process. Today it is no different from any other Head of State in the civilised world. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.”

He said, “In their effort to fool the electorate, they are promising to make a mockery of the highest office of the land. What is the rationale for reducing presidential powers but adding three vice presidents to the Cabinet in the same government?”

Other promises of freedom of speech and other human rights, to be contained in a ‘Bill of Rights’, Nandlall stressed, are already constitutionally enshrined rights.

“Every citizen knows that our Constitution already enshrines freedom of speech and the ‘Bill of Rights’ as fundamental rights and freedoms. Indeed, when we reformed the Constitution in 2001, we expanded the Bill of Rights over and above almost every country in the English speaking Caribbean, and perhaps every country in the entire Commonwealth,” he said.

The Attorney General scoffed also at the promise to address the delays in confirming the appointment of members of the Judiciary, and “rationalize the position of the Chief Justice and the Chancellor of the Judiciary”.

“This is more than comical, since the entire country knows that it is the Leader of the Opposition who has steadfastly refused to agree for the confirmation of the current office holders of these two positions, as is required by the Constitution,” he said.

The APNU+AFC promise of a Freedom of Information law, Nandlall added, is moot, given that the law was enacted four years ago.

FLIP-FLOPPING
In other areas, he charged that the political Opposition is flip-flopping, and has attempted to beguile the Guyanese people with promises to solve problems which were created by the APNU+AFC itself.

“They are proposing to solve problems which they themselves have created. This seems to be a common thread running through the document. For example, they promise, at page 13, adherence to the doctrine of separation of powers under the Constitution. They simply do not have a choice. That is the law of the land. However, they have constantly violated it over the last three years in the National Assembly.

“The High Court has ruled four times that they have done so over the last three years: two times when they cut the budget and two times when they gagged Minister Rohee from speaking,” Nandlall said.

The Attorney General also noted that the promise to repeal the Recall Legislation is a legislation that APNU+AFC called for and voted to support in the Ninth Parliament.

“Their position now is a complete flip-flop,” he declared.

“Raphael Trotman has committed the classic error of addressing the messenger (instead of) the message. One does not need to be an expert in any field in order to read and understand what is written in plain English. Perhaps Trotman needs an expert to do that because of some disability on his part. I am not so circumstanced.” – Anil Nandlall

“Some portions of (their manifesto) read like a fairy tale from Walt Disney, and other portions are riddled with inconsistencies (and) legal and constitutional impossibilities. Indeed, they have hatched up some solutions to problems which they themselves have caused, while they are promising to do things that have already been done.” – Anil Nandlall

By Vanessa Narine