Dear Editor,
I READ all of Anil Nandlall’s letters that touched and concern the high constitutional office of the Attorney General of Guyana. His latest is captioned: “Is this a diplomatic expression of no-confidence in the Minister”? (KN, Sunday, May 07, 2017).
With an accustomed degree of illogicality and superficiality, he writes in relation to President Granger’s appointment of five ministerial advisers to the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs that: “… the appointment of these highly decorated personnel by the President to assist the Attorney General in the discharge of his official duties is a most diplomatic expression of no confidence in this minister…this Minister should do nothing less but tender his resignation in dignity. “…Let us examine now the cost that this Attorney General will now impose, monthly, on the backs of taxpayers for the services of these five advisers… ask of president Granger this fundamental question: would it not be in the best interest of the nation and save taxpayers millions by appointing a competent person to serve in the position of Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, instead?” His political hypocrisy and mischief cannot be disguised. Anil Nandlall has absolutely no interest, whatsoever, in the success or goodwill of this APNU + AFC government. Success of this government is failure of his PPP/C. So, it is a matter of sheer commonsense and logic that his unrelenting condemnation of the Attorney General is not one jot actuated by benevolence for nation, government, President Granger and taxpayers; not at all. On the contrary, it is because he perceives that this Attorney General is a real and present danger and threat to their financial viability and wealth sustainability. Recall Professor Clive Thomas’ coinage of Guyana under this (1997 – 2015) PPP/C as the “Kleptocratic state.” One of the daunting challenges of this APNU + AFC government is the civil recovery of those misappropriated hundreds of billions of public/state assets that the forensic audits have revealed.
I put it to Mr Nandlall that it is the sheer magnitude and scope of those misappropriations under that “Kleptocratic state,” by which the purpose, justification and expediency of the appointment of these ministerial advisers must be understood and judged. The Attorney General is responsible, in point of constitutional law, for their recovery. He is the custodian/guardian of our national patrimony. He is, and will remain the government’s “principal legal adviser” (article 112(1) of the Constitution). Advisory assistance in the special circumstances of government’s policy of recovery attracts no opprobrium. Understand that civil recovery (that potentially may even involve tracing misappropriated assets overseas) is not like some easy criminal law prosecution matter; besides, such appointments does not offend article 112(1) and so portends no crisis in authority; or, cast any aspersions of indignity over the Attorney General.
Having passed the recovery-enabling SARA Bill (the President’s assent to which is impending) implementation of that law, can only be enhanced by these complementary appointments (and this explains why all five advisers are lawyers, and not of some other profession). It is all about complementarity; these are not substitutionary in purpose; it is all about the magnitude and unprecedented scope of the recovery job to be done; not some rubbish notion of “no-confidence” (the Nandlall view). I put it to Mr Nandlall that logic does not require five advisers as “an expression of no-confidence”, if that was indeed intended; one or two would have sufficed. Moreover, what if these appointments were on the initiative of the AG himself? The sheer logic of five is that if they are expressions of no-confidence, then there is some crisis of confidence even about some among the five – hence the need for multiple appointments! So, plainly Nandlall’s “no-confidence” opinion has absolutely no merit, or logic.
Turning now to his graphic finance diatribe: with his accustomed degree of superficiality and bias, he makes no attempt whatsoever at an estimation (even an intentionally grossly understated one) at the likely benefits that would accrue to, or, be gained, by taxpayers and the nation, from such costs, (economists call this the economic cost). But then, to expect such from Mr Nandlall is pure naievity on my part. Be that as it may, it is plainly improvident stupidity for Mr Nandlall to suppose that government spending $79,980,000 per annum (Nandlall’s estimated annual cost of the five advisers – $ 6,665,000 x 12) is as if such expenditure is some indulgeance by President Granger of philanthropic enthusiasm at taxpayers’ expense; and not what it truly is — a quid pro quo (ie what lawyers call consideration) for anticipated expert advisory assistance and services. Mr Nandlall, I, for myself, would indeed wish to ask President Granger a “fundamental question.” But it is not yours. It is this: Mr President, what took you so long? In 2015, some six months into the Granger presidency, professor justice Duke Pollard wrote: “… our learned Attorney General is being put on notice that much is expected of him in terms of identifying and vigorously pursuing delinquent officials for the recovery of national assets and resources.” (KN Monday, October 5, 2015, caption” “CCJ has established an extremely daunting precedent in the Commonwealth”). His Excellency, President Granger has with, exemplary transparency and perspicacity, given professor Pollard, and four other advisers a remunerated opportunity to offer their assistance to the realisation of that clarion call.
And if, as anticipated, such re-muneration contributes to the recovery of some of those billions, then the results for nation and taxpayers alike are all beneficial.
Regards
Maxwell E. Edwards
(Attorney – At – Law)