And for those scumbags on GNI who asks for Proof, then they can take notice of this incident.

Some shocking happenings in judicial

quarters

Some events send shockwaves through a society. For example, when President Forbes Burnham died the country was stunned. The news was that his political party was gearing for its biennial congress a few weeks later so he had to have his throat cleared of plaque that had built up.
It is now common knowledge that he never survived the surgical intervention.  His death was a shocker. The death of Dr Cheddi Jagan was less stunning. Had he not languished in an American hospital then Guyana would have been more shocked than it was. Indeed, if his aides had been allowed to have their way the nation would not have been told anything.
It turned out that there were daily reports all of which stated that Dr Jagan was critical, but stable until he suffered some relapse. The message was clear; he was dying slowly  each relapse indicated.
When the so-called cricketer, Carlyle Barton, was freed of shooting to death a harmless man said to be his friend the entire country was horrified. There was the video evidence and the video was clear. It showed Barton coming out of his car and shooting Shawn Nelson even as the man walked toward him.
This video was widely circulated; there was no doubt that Barton shot the man then calmly got back into his car and drove away, barely missing the dying Nelson who by this time was lying on the roadway.
The court later claimed that the police never tendered the video and if they did, there was no one to testify to the authenticity of the video. There were many loopholes in the matter that Barton simply walked free. Here was a man who shot and killed an unarmed man who was doing nothing but walking toward his killer. He was freed of any criminal  action.
Lo and behold, if one thought that the Barton incident was a blemish on the legal landscape, then one had not realized that the same thing would happen a few months later.  Randy Jagdeo was accused of shooting his friend, Kirk Davis, to death. There was at least one eyewitness but many people had seen the result of the shooting having been alerted by the sound of gunshots.
To compound the issue, Jagdeo undertook to flee the country in a bid to avoid prosecution. He reportedly fled to Suriname but his wife, who could testify to the shooting, was allowed to leave the country so that she could offer no evidence. The result is that the police failed to do so many things right that Jagdeo was discharged.
The act that Barton and Jagdeo had access to lots of money has not escaped notice. Did they pay the investigators to botch the case? That is the view of a large section of the population. Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions could reinstitute the charges, and she did in the Barton case. Sadly, Barton has fled the country and has avoided further prosecution.
Something must be wrong with our criminal justice system when clear cases of murder are allowed to become no more serious that a man who jumps a traffic light. This is shocking. It is now left for people to question the police about what could have led to the discharge of these two cases although there seemed to be a preponderance of evidence.
If the police need to demonstrate that they are above corruption then they must say what went wrong with the prosecution. We know that this is not new territory. We had a policeman who shot and killed an Albouystown resident but was charged with manslaughter.
A magistrate erroneously sought to hike the charge to murder. This matter never went to trial and like Barton after him; he left the country for good. The police allowed it to happen.
The release of Barton and Jagdeo must be seen as an embarrassment to the investigating ranks of the Guyana Police Force.  Even worse, since all matters are sent to the DPP for advice one must ask the DPP to explain the level of the prosecution.

One can only speculate that witnessess are being bribed largely, to stay away for court.............hence making the Judicial System a laughing stock under the corrupt PPP/C

Can the AG prove that he had no

involvement with the Vernon Griffith

file?

Dear Editor,
Kindly allow me to respond to Mr. Nandlall’s letter titled “Nandlall denies any relationship with jury foreman” (KN, March 19, 2014). Mr. Nandlall was responding to my missive titled “Was the PPP playing political games with the Lusignan massacre trial?” (KN, March 17, 2014). Mr. Nandlall states “The P.P.P as a political party plays no role in the prosecution of criminal matters. In fact, the Constitution specifically insulates political influence from the political process. The assertion, therefore, that the P.P.P failed to deliver a conviction in the Lusignan Massacre is simply ludicrous.”
The PPP is the political party that forms the present Guyana government or the executive arm of the state. Members of the PPP and only members of the said PPP, Mr. Nandlall included, hold the highest positions of power, authority and direction in the Government of Guyana. Members of the PPP, including members of the PPP’s Central Committee and its Executive Committee, comprise the majority of Cabinet. The Government of Guyana is dominated by active PPP members. That same Government of Guyana supervises, directs and controls the Guyana Police Force, which commences, initiates, targets, investigates and prosecutes crime. Prosecution of crime starts from the very moment the GPF becomes involved. Therefore, it is ludicrous that Mr. Nandlall will assert that the PPP plays no role in the prosecution of criminal matters. Every country that has a political system with competing political parties and especially so in Guyana, will be subject to governmental/executive decision-making being heavily affected and influenced by political party influence. To try to argue that there is separation of the party from the governance of the state, government and the actions of the executive arm of the state, and particularly so in the case of Guyana, is simply preposterous, no matter how much constitutional balderdash is quoted.
I am no attorney, but I think it is shallow to suggest that article 187 of the constitution removes the Attorney-General from engagement in the prosecutorial activity of the state and puts that responsibility solely in the hands of the DPP. The Attorney-General is the principal legal advisor to the Government of Guyana by virtue of Article 112. That legal advice encompasses civil and criminal matters in which the Government of Guyana has an interest or which involves the Government.
In Guyana, and most shockingly in failed state and corrupt Guyana, the DPP surprisingly does not usually institute criminal proceedings on its own although it has the power to do so! The DPP typically acts on proceedings and investigations commenced by other bodies, primarily the police force. The Guyana Police Force is directly supervised and directed by the Government of Guyana, which in turn is controlled by members of the PPP led by a President who was elected as head of a PPP slate. The police force does, at times, prosecute without the involvement of the DPP. The Guyana Government would have direction over those proceedings by virtue of its power and superintendence of and over the police force. Of his own or if requested, the AG as the principal legal advisor to the Guyana Government, has constitutional authority to provide legal advice to the Government of Guyana on these matters directly prosecuted by the police without any involvement of the DPP. That legal advice could be used to direct the police in its prosecutorial actions.
Further, because any criminal matter that is in the hands of the police is within the ambit of control of the Government of Guyana and is accordingly open to the advice of the AG acting on behalf of the Guyana Government, the AG could provide legal advice on any aspects of police prosecution involving any matters and could further, provide legal advice to the Government over the interactions and dealings of the police with the DPP on any ongoing investigations.
In ongoing cases where the police and DPP are in collaboration on evidentiary and other matters, the Government of Guyana has the power to direct the police throughout the course of its dealings and interactions with the DPP. Any member of the Guyana Government has the ability and right to ask the AG for legal advice on any matter involving a police investigation. That advice could have a bearing or impact on the prosecution of a case directly prosecuted by the police or taken over by the DPP. The Lusignan massacre file was in the hands of the police before the DPP got involved. While it was in the hands of the police, Mr. Nandlall had the constitutional ability to provide legal advice on the Lusignan massacre to the police or to the minister responsible for the police or to the President who directs the minister responsible for the police or to any other officer of the Government of Guyana. Mr. Nandlall should inform the public whether in his capacity as Attorney-General he provided legal advice to any member of the Government of Guyana or their subordinates including the President, Minister of Home Affairs or Chief of Police on the Lusignan massacre matter?
I am prepared to apologize and retract my statement that Mr. Nandlall had a relationship with Vernon Griffith, the jury foreman in the Lusignan massacre trial, if Mr. Nandlall could confirm that before the start of the Lusignan massacre trial the Vernon Griffith file was handled exclusively and solely by Mr. Manoj Narayan of his office and that Mr. Nandlall had no involvement on the file or any supervision over Mr. Narayan’s work on the file. Mr. Nandall could verify whether he knew Vernon Griffith through their mutual PPP membership? Mr. Nandlall could also inform the nation whether, at any time before the start of the Lusignan massacre trial, he knew his law firm represented Vernon Griffith? Mr. Nandlall could clarify for the nation whether he knew of the prior Nigel Hughes-Vernon Griffith relationship before the Lusignan massacre trial started? Did Mr. Nandlall know Vernon Griffith picketed Mr. Hughes in protest before the Lusignan massacre trial commenced?
M. Maxwell