ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams, SC, is contending that the law suit filed by former Attorney General Anil Nandlall for libel and slander should be dismissed.

Nandlall has sued Williams for alleging that he (Nandlall) illegally removed Commonwealth Law Reports (CLR) from the Attorney General’s Chambers. He argued that he was the owner of the 14 CLRs for the years 2013 to May 2015 and said the books were acquired during his tenure as Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister as a condition of his service.

He had been subscribing to Lexis Nexis (UK), publishers of the Commonwealth Law Reports since 2003.

As such, he is seeking damages in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) for slander published on the 24th day of March, 2017, at a press conference hosted at the National Communication Network Inc. along with damages in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) for libel published on the 24th day of March, 2017, at a press conference, hosted at the National Communication Network Inc; damages in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) for libel published in the Guyana Times Newspaper, at page 11, March 25th, 2017; damages in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) for slander published during an outreach programme in Berbice, on the 26th March, 2017; damages in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) for libel published by Demerarawaves on the 27th day of March, 2017; exemplary/aggravated damages; interest on all damages awarded pursuant to Section 12 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Chap 6:02; and an injunction restraining the defendant, by himself, his servants and/or agents from publishing, or causing to be published or saying or causing to be said or repeating of and concerning the claimant, the offending statements in relation to the Commonwealth Law Reports.

However, in response, Williams argued that Nandlall did not receive the CLRs in accordance with legal procedures and by virtue of that; he had reason to believe Nandlall had no intention of returning the state’s assets.

There was a set procedure to be followed which was governed by Stores Regulations 1993 and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMAA) as it related to the purchase of assets for use by the ministry.

As a member of Government and Chair of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Williams submitted that he was under a duty to communicate such information, as state assets are required to be managed in a specified manner and according to legislation.

NECESSARY
Additionally, he said as a public official it was necessary for him to make the information known to the public and to the media in good faith.

Nandlall was on April 27 charged by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) with Larceny by Bailee, a charge to which he was not required to enter a plea because of the indictable nature of the offence.

Further, Williams explained that he first learnt of the missing Commonwealth Law Reports in or around October, 2015, after being so informed by Head of the Budget Agency at the Attorney General’s Chambers and Ministry of Legal Affairs (AGCMOLA), Melissa Tucker Permanent Secretary (ag).

He contends that former Permanent Secretary Indira Anandjit had gone on leave just two days prior to his receipt of the information and noted that it was the first time he was apprised of the accounting system, which included information on the purchase and acquisition of the CLR, by the Permanent Secretary (PS) (ag), Melissa Tucker.

Williams said he was advised to write the Auditor General’s Office and request that a special audit is conducted into, inter alia, the purchase of the missing CLRs. On or around February 2016, Tucker showed him a copy of the report of the special audit of the CLR dated 29th January, 2016 and advised him that it was flawed for several reasons and that she would provide a response challenging the findings in the audit within 30 days, pursuant to Section 27 of the Audit Act No. 4 of 2004.

Subsequently, the Auditor General received explanations in separate letters written by Nandlall and former President Donald Ramotar to the effect that the latter purportedly allowed the Claimant to use the Attorney General’s Chambers and Ministry of Legal Affairs money to purchase the CLRs to keep as his personal property to the exclusion of the other Lawyers in the Attorney General’s Chambers.

“The Claimant, Mohabir Anil Nandlall did not deny the larceny of the CLRs but on arrangements as he claimed as part of his condition of service, which does not exist in any Law or in any Public Service Rules or Regulations.”

Additionally, by virtue of a letter dated February 26, Tucker sent a written response to the Auditor-General’s special audit in which she challenged the findings, stating that the ministry has never been privy to any conditions of service for Nandlall which included the purchase of law books.

The former PS said too that the alleged agreement circumvents the procedural accountability of the budget agency that is governed by Stores Regulations 1993 and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMAA).

FLAGRANT MISUSE
She stated that the purchase of the law reports using public funds for personal use is a flagrant misuse of public funds. Property bought with public funds by the ministry ought to remain the property of the ministry.

“The ministry completely rejects the report presented by the auditor-general and his pronouncement on the matter of Law Books/Reports not being required to be subjected to the Stores Regulations, when public funds were used for the acquisition of same,” Williams submitted.

He noted that the head of the Budget Agency was not cited for any gross negligence or sanctions during the process and is solely responsible and accountable for all procurement and disbursement of funds in accordance with the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003, the Stores Regulations 1993 and the Procurement Act 2003.

“There was no mention of the officer who approved all payments for the acquisition of these items (Law Books/Reports and computer parts and accessories) using public funds,” he contended, while noting that the Financial Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMAA), Section 2 defines public money as “all moneys belonging to the State received or collected by officials in their capacity or by any person authorised to receive or collect such moneys…”

While Section 48 states that a minister or official shall not in any manner misuse, misapply, or improperly dispose of public moneys.

The AG submitted that the matter has engaged the attention of the public as well as the authorities empowered to recover state assets with a view to instituting charges for the larceny of public property.

“It was at a public meeting in Berbice on the 26th March, 2017, when the question was asked whether the claimant was in possession of the law books and would be charged. The defendant responded and said that the claimant could be prosecuted for larceny of the assets.”

He argued that his comments were based on the fact that Nandlall did not follow the Financial Expenditure Procurement process and the Stores Laws and Regulations, and as a result, could be subject to prosecution.

“The comments were not orchestrated to be an attack on the claimant personally, but were made within the scope of the defendant’s office and responsibilities as the Minister of the Ministry of Legal Affairs with responsibility to protect state assets. He was duty bound to undertake a reasonable investigation into the location of unaccounted assets,” Williams submitted, while adding that the comments were not made maliciously, but were based on facts.