It might be an overstatement to say that the Cabinet was and is divided over what to do about Attorney General Anil Nandlall, but despite the united front, one can read into certain statements by his colleagues that indicate support for him is not unanimous.
First example is Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon who even in his circumlocutory manner managed to get his point across quite well yesterday, stating almost mournfully that he does not “really any longer” consider himself as an advisor to the President. (Kaieteur News)
Luncheon when quizzed if he was asked for his advice in the Nandlall matter replied, “yes, I had inputs into the disclosures that have taken place at Cabinet level.” Asked if his inputs were reflected in the position taken by the PPP administration, he said “I wouldn’t say that.”
“The Cabinet Secretary said that it is kind of “difficult” when over 20 members have to vote on a decision.
Dr. Luncheon disclosed that, “…it is difficult to say that Luncheon’s (position), particularly the people whose position accord with Luncheon’s position, has been taken as the overall position.”
So clearly there were others in the Cabinet who did not agree with the retaining, and indeed the subsequent public promotion, of the minister.
One of them might well be Prime Minister Sam Hinds who has not said anything controversial or even substantive in around 15 years, but made slip a remark yesterday that was a little off the party line when speaking to KN by phone from overseas in relation to the money Nandlall took or reimbursed…whatever for some medical procedure.
Nandlall had said in his press release, “This is, and historically has been, an entitlement of every member of Cabinet long before my appointment.”
But KN notes Hinds differs, “I would not call it an entitlement. It is not something that is automatic. It really is a hard question to respond to, but what I would say is that one would have to review the long series of circumstances surrounding the need for money in that kind of situation. It would depend on the nature of the emergency for money to be granted. It’s not like a Minister could come and say he has a broken foot or something and just ask for money and it would be approved.”
Given the funds were 1) not an emergency and 2)not for Nandall but for his wife, it seems Hinds is hinting that it may not have been so routine as his colleague is stating.
And finally there is Robert Persaud whose news website iNews has from day one been actively slanting stories against Nandlall:
“AFC wants Anil Nandlall FIRED! “He has brought the AG’s Office into disrepute”
“Anil tape Scandal: Calls mounted for Minister Nandlall to resign.”
“Human Rights Body blasts President for “hapless” defense of Nandlall”
It all adds up to some clear fissures in the Cabinet that may have been developing for years but in a time of crisis are more apparent. But of course one must not expect any dramatic developments or open dissent. The PPP is unique in enforcing party discipline and showing a united front. As Luncheon concluded “once a position is adopted by the administration..”there is no longer a difference between “the Luncheon” and “the government’s position, for in the end, it is all one.”
