PEOPLE’S Progressive Party MP, Anil Nandlall and his party on Monday issued separate statements attacking the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack, and calling her decision to discontinue private criminal charges laid against two sitting ministers of government as nonsensical.

The two ministers, Volda Lawrence and Dr. George Norton were accused of Misconduct in Public Office, contrary to the Common Law. In a strongly worded statement, Nandlall said the DPP’s decision to discontinue the charges laid by two PPP parliamentarians, Juan Edghill and Vishaw Bharrat, shows that her office was influenced by extraneous considerations.
The two parliamentarians have alleged that Lawrence, while serving as Minister of Public Health, wilfully misconducted herself in a way which amounted to an abuse of public trust when she authorised or caused the unapproved single-sourcing and purchase of drugs and medical supplies for the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC), from ANSA McAL Trading Limited amounting to the sum of $605,962,200.

The Public Procurement Commission (PPC) had cleared the Public Health Minister of any wrongdoing. The charge against Dr. Norton alleged that while performing the duties of Minister of Public Health, his actions amounted to an abuse of public trust when he authorised or caused the rental of a Sussex Street, Albouystown bond from Linden Holdings Incorporated for the sum of $12,500,000 and exclusive of VAT, monthly.

The private criminal charges filed against the two government ministers, followed charges instituted against former Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh and former head of NICIL, Winston Brassington, by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) for misconduct in public office, contrary to the common law. The action by Edghill and Bharrat was taken one week after the former officials were charged. Dr. Singh and Brassington are accused of selling state lands at costs below their rightful value. Nandlall had written the DPP requesting she review the charges laid against Dr. Singh and Brassington and altogether discontinue same. The former attorney general said he is yet to receive a response from the DPP’s office on his request.

“I feel the DPP’s discontinuance of the charges against the two ministers but apparent refusal to do likewise in relation to Singh and Brassington’s charges, smacks of discrimination and inequality before the law,” he said, citing Article 149 of the Constitution which guarantees citizens’ protection from discrimination and inequality before the law.

“The DPP’s latest action has certainly strengthened Singh and Brassington’s intended challenge of their charges in the High Court. Ashni Singh and Winston Brassington are absolutely justified in concluding that they have been discriminated against by the DPP. I did say that these cases will test the independence of the office of the DPP. They have,” declared Nandlall.

The attorney argued that while he wrote the DPP calling for a review of the charges against his clients, no one wrote requesting same on behalf of the two ministers. The DPP in her decision said, the charges were discontinued by virtue of the powers vested in her by Article 187 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. “These charges concern a grave issue under the criminal law in relation to two serving ministers. In the interest of good governance in the State of Guyana, such allegations ought first to have been reported to the Guyana Police Force for an investigation to be launched and the advice of the DPP sought,” the DPP stated.

But Nandlall contends that the reason provided by Ali-Hack has to be “fresh and new jurisprudence” as he is unaware, where in the Constitution, she is empowered to be responsible for “good governance in the State of Guyana”.

The attorney said Article 187 of the Constitution is clear and said, “This must be the first and only DPP office in the English-speaking Commonwealth that views itself as being responsible for ‘good governance’ within a State.”

Nandlall accused the DPP of being “influenced by extraneous and irrelevant considerations” thereby making her action ultra-vires and unconstitutional. He stressed that the institution of private criminal charges have been part of the country’s criminal jurisprudence for over a century, as it has always been initiated by a private individual without the involvement of the Police and the DPP. “There is absolutely no known legal requirement that the allegation must first be reported to the Police and the advice of the DPP sought,” said the attorney, who posited that it is the failure of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) to act or to act

professionally that led to the evolution and practice of private criminal charges. The PPP later issued a similar statement on the matter.