–as opposition faces accusations of hypocrisy
ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, S.C., has raised serious concerns about what he calls a “constitutional atrocity,” related to the appointment of former Police Commissioner (ag) Nigel Hoppie by the then APNU+AFC government.
Nandlall took to Facebook on Friday, highlighting what he perceives as a glaring violation of the country’s constitution by the opposition while the A Partnership for National Unity and the Alliance For Change coalition (APNU+AFC) was in government.

He accused the coalition of posturing as champions of constitutionality and the rule of law, while turning a blind eye to what he considers a severe breach of the constitution.
Nandlall’s revelation follows questions from the opposition over the extension of Clifton Hicken’s tenure as acting Commissioner of Police by President, Dr. Irfaan Ali.
Opposition member Carol Smith-Joseph, acting as the Chief Scrutineer for the PNC-led APNU opposition, filed a Fixed Date Application (FDA) challenging this extension. Smith-Joseph argued that there is no legal basis for the Head of State to prolong the term of an acting Police Commissioner.
In her legal filings, Smith-Joseph contends that Hicken is currently serving in a temporary, acting capacity in accordance with Article 211 (2) of the Guyanese Constitution, not as a substantive Commissioner of Police.

She argued that Hicken’s appointment as Police Commissioner was initially based on necessity due to the absence of a duly constituted Police Service Commission (PSC) and a Leader of the Opposition. However, these circumstances no longer exist.
In his Facebook post, Nandlall wrote: “Yet this same APNU+AFC continues to masquerade as champions of constitutionality and the rule of law. Paul Slowe and Clinton Conway write excessively in the newspapers on legal issues concerning the Police Force. But to date, they have not uttered a word about this horrible constitutional atrocity!”
Nandlall’s remarks revolve around the appointment of Hoppie to act in the Office of Commissioner of Police on July 30, 2020, by the then Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Public Security following the retirement of Commissioner of Police, Leslie James.

Nandlall reminded the nation that this appointment by the APNU was a clear violation of Article 211 of Guyana’s Constitution, which mandates that such appointments must be made by the President after meaningful consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the Chairman of the Police Service Commission.

At the time of Hoppie’s appointment, Bharrat Jagdeo held the position of Leader of the Opposition, while Slowe served as Chairman of the Police Service Commission.
According to Nandlall, neither the President made the appointment nor were any of the required consultations conducted, as stipulated by the Constitution.
With the evidence of the appoint letter, Nandlall exposed a glaring inconsistency in the APNU+AFC’s purported commitment to upholding constitutionality and the rule of law.
Notably, Slowe and Conway, who are renowned for their vocal stance on legal matters concerning the police force, have remained conspicuously silent on this issue, he said.
The issue comes after Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George, SC, affirmed President Ali’s appointment of Hicken as acting Police Commissioner in August of the previous year.
She had labelled the challenge to his appointment filed by Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones as “vexatious and an abuse of the court process.”
Justice George’s ruling asserted that the President had acted “out of necessity” and legitimately exercised his judgment in choosing someone to serve as the acting Commissioner of Police in the absence of an Opposition Leader and the PSC.

Nandlall had previously affirmed that President Ali acted in complete accordance with the laws when extending the tenure of Hicken as acting Commissioner of Police beyond his age of retirement.

Nandlall recently addressed criticisms raised by Leader of the Opposition Aubrey Norton, and Conway, which were centred on the legality of the extension.
According to Norton, the appointment was deemed unlawful, owing to the belief that the Office of the Commissioner of Police could enjoy an extension only if the office holder had a substantive appointment.

Nandlall, however, countered this argument by asserting that there is no provision in the Constitution or any other law that restricts the extension of tenure solely to substantive appointees.

He said that regardless of if the appointee is acting or is substantive, they enjoy all the powers, facilities, and privileges of the office.