| – Bar Association President Though he expressed reservations about giving an opinion on the recent advice provided by the DirectorBar Association President, Ronald Burch-Smithof Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack on the alleged threats to Kaieteur News (KN)’s publisher and staff by Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall, President of the Guyana Bar Association, Ronald Burch-Smith believes that there are other criminal aspects of the tape which are still to be addressed.The lawyer told Kaieteur News,Authentic MLB Jerseys Online, yesterday, that it would be difficult for him to express his views on Ali-Hack’s decision without seeing the statements the DPP’s office received in the first place. However, from the perspective of the Bar, Burch-Smith said that it is believed that Nandlall’s conduct has made his continuation in the position of AG impossible to defend.He reiterated that there remain several aspects of the matter that have not been dealt with, such as Government’s policies on spending for personal matters which he deemed as being “arbitrary and hidden.”Nandlall, in a profanity-laced recorded conversation with a Kaieteur News reporter, admitted that he “used money from the government… and pay back long before” Publisher, Glenn Lall “made an issue of it.”However, after the conversation went public, in a statement released to the press, the Minister said, “I wish to set the record straight …the reference relates to the reimbursement I received for monies I expended on medical treatment. This reimbursement was approved by Cabinet in a written Cabinet decision dated 20 June, 2013. This is, and historically has been, an entitlement of every member of Cabinet long before my appointment.”Since this statement, numerous questions were raised, particularly on the premise that if the money NandlallDPP Shalimar Ali-Hackclaimed he received was “an entitlement” why did he feel compelled to repay it. The contradictions arising from what was said in the tape and his later statement, moved several politicians and even accountants, to call on the country’s auditor general to run a full-scale investigation into the matter.The Bar Association President said, too, that President Donald Ramotar’s reaction has been quite surprising. “How the President so comfortably brushes aside such immoral and unprofessional conduct is astonishing,” he said.KN’s Publisher Glenn Lall had filed a complaint with the police, alleging that Nandlall threatened the safety of his employees during the conversation, as he had mentioned an imminent attack on the newspaper’s main office on Saffon Street, if the company continued with its exposure of government corruption.But after over a month of delays, the DPP, in a statement, revealed that she advised that no charges be laid against Nandlall.In her statement to the media, the DPP referred to the recorded conversation between “personal friends” Senior KN reporter, Leonard Gildarie, and Nandlall as private. Ali-Hack said that based on the evidence contained in the police file, the conversation was “not between the Attorney General…and Mr. Glenn Lall.”She explained that the offence created in Section 141(a) Chapter 8:02 is in relation to the speaker using threatening language with intent to provoke anyone else to commit a breach of the peace, that is, provoking another person to do so.According to the DPP, the threatening language must be such as is likely to provoke a breach of the peace by anyone else, that is, the person to whom the threat is directed.“In these circumstances, the communication to Mr. Gildarie does not provide an evidential basis which can support the institution of criminal proceedings,” she advised.With regard to the DPP’s decision, Burch-Smith said that Ali-Hack’s position would be consistent with advice she had given on other cases. He said, however, that it should not negate the fact that there are other offences which are evident in the recorded conversation.Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan, had also said that there is enough evidence to charge Nandlall under the Terrorist Act and urged the DPP to review the evidence and her decision. A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)’s Shadow Minister of Finance, Carl Greenidge had agreed with this position.Asked if he would lend his support to this stance, Burch-Smith said it would be difficult to do so without knowing more.“For instance, the DPP would have had the benefit of statements which are outside the conversation. A police officer would have interviewed the AG or attempted to do so. I haven’t seen anything published about that. Questioning by the police would have clarified a lot.“Similarly, a refusal by the AG to answer questions would also have been instructive in her decision-making. If she felt there was inadequate information, she could have asked the police to conduct further investigations.”With particular reference to what Ramjattan posited, the Bar Association President said, “People say stupid and careless things all the time in private – doing so is not necessarily a crime. The Terrorism offence is not intended to make stupid conversations the subject of criminal prosecution, otherwise we’d have to close all the country’s bars and rum shops.” |
