The Nigel Hughes saga: The plot thickens!–in dramatic turn of events
IN HIS latest attempt to survive the swirling controversy engulfing himself and party, Attorney-at-law/politician, Nigel Hughes has made a number of damaging statements which further expose him personally and professionally.Old Kai is hoping that the Judiciary is taking keen note of his latest admission which contradicts an earlier explanation given, that he (Hughes) could not remember being previously acquainted with the Jury Foreman prior to the commencement of the Lusignan massacre trial.
We are told that “before the jury was selected and empanelled (for the commencement of the Lusignan massacre trial), the learned judge specifically called out the names of all the attorneys involved in the case, and told the entire panel that if they know or were associated with any of the attorneys, they ought to indicate and would be excused.” We are also informed that at this point, both the jury foreman and Nigel Hughes remained silent.
It was only after the relationship between the two was highlighted, and when questioned by the judge, that the jury foreman admitted he knew Hughes, and his reason for not disclosing this before the case commenced was that he did not see it as a problem.
Mr. Hughes, on the other hand, as reported in the media in October 2013, claimed that “it was impossible for him to remember all of his clients…”
However, in a most dramatic turn of events, Hughes, based on the contents of a recent statement, has apparently regained his memory with regard to the particular jury foreman.
Even more damaging is that he has now admitted being familiar with the jury foreman prior to the start of the Lusignan trial, as he is quoted as saying: “At the time of the Lusignan trial, any relationship which existed between the foreman and myself could best be described as hostile. There was nothing to disclose.”
This clearly contradicts his earlier statement to the media that “it was impossible for him to remember all of his clients (with reference to the Jury Foreman), as he has now admitted to having a ‘hostile relationship with the said Jury Foreman prior to the commencement of the trial.”
Further, why would Hughes choose to stay silent if he really believed his client was innocent and his life hanged in the balance, pending an unbiased decision from the jury when, by his own admission, we are told that he shared a ‘hostile relationship’ with the Jury Foreman? Which lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, in their right mind would not want to disclose such a relationship over fear that this individual (the lead juror) who is ‘hostile’ to you, will seek to use his position to negatively influence his peers?
Keep in mind that this is the very Nigel Hughes who was quick to attack the integrity of the Commissioners of the Linden Inquiry during those sessions, even to the point of walking out in protest and recusing himself from the case, even though all the individuals were legal luminaries, with some coming from other countries.
But here it is, Nigel Hughes claimed he shared a ‘hostile relationship’ with an individual who was chosen to be a Jury Foreman in a case where his client’s life depended on their decision, and yet he chose to stay silent, when the Judge asked for them to disclose any relationship between the Jurors and lawyers.
The mere fact that Hughes now publicly admits knowledge of the jury foreman prior to the start of the case, and further, that they shared a relationship, albeit acrimonious, is enough to warrant an investigation.
The drama does not end there, as Hughes contends that he was also aware that the Jury Foreman was a member of the PPP, and as “part of his party duties in 2012, participated in a public picketing exercise against him (Hughes) at the Supreme Court during the hearing of the Linden Commission of Inquiry.” We are told that Hughes even presented a photograph of the foreman on the picket line with members of the PPP.
What this allegation does is that it further sinks Nigel Hughes, as, with all that collection of information about this individual, yet he chose to remain silent. His familiarity with the foreman goes even further, as he also claims the man was represented by the current attorney-general two years prior to the Lusignan Massacre trial, when he (Hughes) appeared against the said individual in the case.
What all of this information does is that it brings us right back to the silence of Mr. Hughes when it was time to disclose any relationship between the jurors and lawyers of the Lusignan Massacre case, and, more importantly, his statement to the media immediately after his relationship with the Jury Foreman was exposed, that “it was impossible for him (Hughes) to remember all of his clients…”
Our nation is now eagerly watching and waiting to see how our Judiciary, the Guyana Police Force and the Guyana Bar Association, all independent in their own right, will treat this public admission by Nigel Hughes.
Old Kai will continue with another damaging exposure in tomorrow’s edition of the Chronicle.