AG chastises Williams for trying to undermine integrity of Rodney CoI
- dubs his comments as ‘vexatious, outrageous and sinister’
ATTORNEY-General and Minster of Legal Affairs, Mr Anil Nandlall, yesterday, rejected the “vexatious, outrageous and sinister” comments made by Shadow Legal Affairs Minister, Mr Basil Williams, in a letter published in Wednesday’s edition of the Stabroek News.Williams, a Member of Parliament representing the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), sought to question the legality of the extension of the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry (CoI) proceedings.
Nandlall, in a response yesterday, said Williams’ allegations contained in that letter are not only “vexatious, outrageous and sinister,” but they are “obviously calculated” to undermine the integrity of the CoI.
Basil Williams
“This is not surprising. It has been the agenda of Mr. Williams and his party even before the Commission was established. I can only surmise that they realised that they would not be able to deal with the evidence that was likely to emerge and in fact is emerging from the Commission,” Nandlall said in a statement to the media.
The AG added that from the outset, the APNU attacked the Terms of Reference (TOR), which failed, and saw the party proceeding to challenge the integrity of Commissioners on the CoI, all of which failed.
“They (also) attacked the procedure employed by the Commission and the quality of evidence adduced thereof. That also failed. These new allegations by Mr. Williams are obviously their next line of attack. This will also fail,” he said.
HOPELESSLY WRONG
Nandlall contends that Williams’ assertions are “hopelessly wrong” and the facts to support this are clear.
He said, “Two simple points will establish this. One, on June 23, 2014, before the commencement of the third sitting of the Commission, the President sent a letter to the Chairman extending the life of the Commission until September 30th, 2014. This notification was published in the Official Gazette in an extra ordinary publication dated June 24th, 2014 which stated that it was effective from June 23rd, 2014. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, Chapter 19:03 by virtue of Section 3 gives the President the power to alter a Commission of Inquiry established under that Act.”
Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Chapter 19:03 provides that: “In case any commissioner shall be or become unable or unwilling to act, or shall die, the President may appoint another commissioner in his place; and any commission issued under this Act may be altered as the President may deem fit by any subsequent commission issued by the President or may be revoked altogether by a notification to that effect published in the Gazette.”
“It was, therefore, well within the power of the President to include in the publication that the extension was to be effective from June 23, 2014,” Nandlall said.
The AG also referenced Section 21 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, Chapter 2:01, which gives the President the power to publish subsidiary legislations, such as the notification for extension and for them to have retrospective operation.
“What this means is that they can come into operation before the date of publication in the official Gazette,” he said.
Section 21 (2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, Chapter 2:01 states that: “Subsidiary Legislation other than those specified in subsection (1) need not be published unless expressly required by the Act conferring power to make them and, whether published or not, such instruments shall come into operation at the time of their making or at such other time as may be specified therein.”
Nandlall said, “The evidence taken by the Commission on June 23rd, 2014, is therefore beyond any legal challenge. A simple reading of the relevant sections of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and the Interpretation and General Clauses Act would have saved Mr. Williams from much embarrassment.”
The AG concluded that Williams’ use of the Stabroek News’ Letters column, rather than to address these matters to the Commission itself, evidences an intent to mislead the general public.
“It is my considered view that the forum used by Mr. Williams, that is, the Letters column of the newspaper rather than making those very objections before the Commission itself, leads me to the ineluctable conclusion that Mr. Williams not only intends to mislead the public but also to disparage the integrity of the Commission,” he said.
(By Vanessa Narine )
excerpts from the Guyana Chronicle