Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs Mr. Anil Nandlall yesterday took the Opposition to task over what he described as “an attack on the integrity and independence of the Judiciary.”

Nandlall, in a statement, said the PPP/Civic Administration views with deep concern the recent proclivity of the Joint Opposition, both in and out of Parliament, of making statements that, “expressly and by implication, constitute an attack on the integrity and independence of the Judiciary”.


Following is the full text of Minister Nandlall’s statement:


The PPP/C Administration views with deep concern the recent proclivity of the Joint Opposition, both in and out of Parliament, of making statements that expressly and by implication constitute an attack on the integrity and independence of the Judiciary.   Further, it is the view of the Administration, that these statements by their expressed language and tenor are designed to pit the Executive against the Judiciary.
Frequent references are made of the government’s resort to the Judiciary for redress against flagrant violations of the Constitution by the Joint Opposition in the National Assembly. The government’s exercise of this democratic right and constitutional freedom is, irrationally, viewed by the Opposition as an attempt by the Administration to wage “war” against the Legislature.
The latest statement issued by the Alliance For Change published on December 18, 2012, must be viewed against this politically inspired backdrop.  This statement, in effect, blames the Administration for the non-appointment of office holders to the positions of Chancellor and Chief Justice, respectively.
The statement further insinuates that the government is deliberately perpetuating such state of affairs in order to derive, presumably, favourable rulings from these office holders. Its falsity apart, this insipid insinuation constitutes a most callous assault on the integrity and reputation of two distinguished jurists of this land who have served their country with distinction.
Additionally, the AFC, whose leadership consists of several lawyers, fully well know that the persons who are acting in those two offices are, substantively, the Chief Justice of the country and a Justice of Appeal and, therefore, they currently enjoy the most impregnable security of tenure that the Constitution offers by virtue of those substantive appointments.
Significantly, the makers of this statement, either by design or because of unfamiliarity with the issue, omit to acknowledge the documented efforts of both former President Bharrat Jagdeo and His Excellency President Donald Ramotar to secure the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition, as is constitutionally required, to fill these vacancies. Unfortunately, these efforts were futile. The Administration remains hopeful that an agreement can be realised earliest.   In fact, the Administration urges the AFC to focus their attention on encouraging the Leader of the Opposition to respond to the President‘s overtures to fill these vacancies.
The AFC’s contentions are, therefore, characteristically devoid of any merit.
The Administration further regards as an outrage, the bizarre allegation of the AFC that it has declared “war” against the Legislature. Ours is a position which is founded in principle. The Administration will challenge all or any violations of the Constitution or onslaught of the rule of law whenever it occurs and whoever is the perpetrator. It is our democratic right to do so and indeed, a devolved constitutional duty, from which we will not shirk. In this regard, the National Assembly enjoys no exemption either in logic or law.
Finally, the Administration does not discount the possibility that this statement is a veiled attempt by the AFC to intimidate the Honourable Chief Justice, who currently, has conduct of a matter filed by the Attorney-General challenging the Opposition’s actions in the National Assembly, which resulted in the Speaker prohibiting the Minister of Home Affairs and an elected member of the National Assembly, Mr. Clement Rohee, from discharging his duties in the House.The Administration intends to vigilantly monitor and expose this new AFC’s political strategy of judicial intimidation.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Conscience:

ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs Mr. Anil Nandlall yesterday took the Opposition to task over what he described as “an attack on the integrity and independence of the Judiciary.”

Anil got a big mouth and a fat bank account enhanced by illegal payments. He is easy to bribe. All that he is doing is living in denial of the corruption that the legal professionals in the PPP take part in.

Mr.T

Additionally, the AFC, whose leadership consists of several lawyers, fully well know that the persons who are acting in those two offices are, substantively, the Chief Justice of the country and a Justice of Appeal and, therefore, they currently enjoy the most impregnable security of tenure that the Constitution offers by virtue of those substantive appointments.

 

quoted from OH Nadalala the drunk.

 

How can acting positions have security of tenure.

 

Bring moh rum for OH Nadalala.

FM

It appears the Judiciary is being praised when it rules in the opposition's favor and condemned when it rules against, the Judiciary should continue to be an independent arm and never be intimidated by the joint opposition...

FM
Originally Posted by Conscience:

It appears the Judiciary is being praised when it rules in the opposition's favor and condemned when it rules against, the Judiciary should continue to be an independent arm and never be intimidated by the joint opposition...

Oi old counsee,

 

 

Page 15 of the AFC Action Plan - its promise to the people:

 

 

The Judicial System

 

Point 2


2. Address the delays in confirming appointments of
Members of the Judiciary;


Why u and Oh Nadalala rass like fuh LIE so much.



It is Christmas, you all change yu dutty way nuh?

FM
Originally Posted by Conscience:

It appears the Judiciary is being praised when it rules in the opposition's favor and condemned when it rules against, the Judiciary should continue to be an independent arm and never be intimidated by the joint opposition...

Banna I know for a fact, there are more who would more believe the following statement (in bold). Yours on the other hand, I can't say much for it.

 

When it rules in the opposition's favor, the Judiciary should continue to be an independent arm and never be intimidated by the ruling party.

cain

Christopher Ram is a junior lawyer who aspires to be head of the judiciary. He is jealous that Anil Nandalall has a respectable government connection and a well-paying lawyer career.

 

Anil Nandall don't beat his wife or liquidate hotels to drug lords and collect bribes to sell Hotel Tower using Scotiabank name. No.

FM

no his wife beat the shit out of him,find out about the land he buy in gt to build a hotel and many more he have.KN need to do some checking on this man,but then again every body in the ppp is stealing

FM
Originally Posted by Hubert Persaud:

Christopher Ram is a junior lawyer who aspires to be head of the judiciary. He is jealous that Anil Nandalall has a respectable government connection and a well-paying lawyer career.

 

Anil Nandall don't beat his wife or liquidate hotels to drug lords and collect bribes to sell Hotel Tower using Scotiabank name. No.

 

But he drink, drink and lie down and always is a rum fight all over the place.  Is this way for a senior government official to behave?

 

 

Secondly he misquote legal cases and is a legal Kwak.

 

Plus he lied to the Government claiming he is a chicken farmer on the Highway to secure duty free concession for the Prado before he was Minista.

 

Thirdly he uses his position to buy influence for certain businessmen then soliciting 5% for his pocket.

 

He no better than Manny who used to tek 5% to get an audience for business men with BJ.

 

FM

The Judiciary's decisions are usually condemned with it doesn't find favour with the joint opposition, they usually attempts to discredit the decisions made in the high court

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×