Responding to recent statements on the matter by members of the AFC and APNU, Nandlall told Stabroek News yesterday that their positions have been inconsistent. “The opposition parties… singularly and together seem to be in confusion on the way forward from the Chief Justice decision,” he said.
Greene has been accused of raping a woman. His accuser, a 34-year-old mother of two, has alleged that she was forced into a city hotel where the act was allegedly committed on the night of November 22, last year. Following investigations, which were assisted by a team from Jamaica, the DPP advised police to charge Greene, but before this could be done he moved to court to set aside the recommendation. In his ruling on the matter, Chief Justice Ian Chang had said that the DPP’s advice to charge was bad in law and irrational, noting that there was no way a conviction could have been secured against Greene. Greene has said that he had consensual sex with the woman. Since the Chief Justice’s decision, there have been increasing calls for the top cop to go. He remains on leave.
Nandlall told Stabroek News yesterday that the parties and officials, including AFC Chairman, Khemraj Ramjattan, based on their public pronouncements have adopted impulsive positions. He said that Ramjattan contends that the decision should be appealed while the woman’s attorney, AFC member, Nigel Hughes has stated that the decision is not appealable. However, he said, Hughes wrote a letter a few days ago to him requesting on behalf of his client, that the AG appeal the decision. “So not only do you have a contradiction between Ramjattan and Hughes but you have Hughes contradicting himself,” Nandlall said. “He is requesting that I appeal but he knows that an appeal does not lie against the decision of the Chief Justice,” the Attorney-General said. Nandlall has advised Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack that an appeal is not possible against the decision by the Chief Justice to quash her advice to charge the Police Commissioner with rape.
Hughes has told Stabroek News that he plans to file private criminal charges. Nandlall said that this is now a “third position on the matter.”
The Attorney-General also said in relation to APNU, that attorney Deborah Backer had supported the DPP and criticized the Chief Justice’s decision and her colleague, attorney Basil Williams, in his budget presentation contended that the DPP has lost her way and spoke on a number of matters, including the Greene issue. “So when all is taken into account, it would appear that the opposition parties are in confusion on this issue,” he said.
Asked yesterday why the government had not taken action against Greene as a joint Guyanese/Jamaican investigative team had said in a report on January 13 that a constitutional provision could be invoked, Nandlall said that it would have been precipitous for the government to take a position in the face of the pending court matter. When it was pointed out to him that the report was submitted at least two weeks before Greene moved to the courts, the AG said that he could not recall the time frame but the matter got overtaken by the proceedings filed by Greene.
The report, seen by Stabroek News is dated January 13, 2012 and addressed to Commissioner of Police (ag), Leroy Brumell. It said: “The commissioner has strongly refuted the allegation of rape, however, his action leaves much to be desired. The complainant was the subject of a criminal investigation which was known to him, as by his own admission formed the basis of her complaint to him in his capacity of Commissioner of Police. It is therefore highly unprofessional of him to have used his public office to engage the complainant in furtherance of sexual favours and as such invokes article 225 (2) of the Constitution.”
Nandlall said that now that the court matter has been concluded, the issue is being addressed at the level of the Office of the President since it is the president who appoints the commissioner of police and it is only the president who can “dis- appoint” him.
The president has indicated publicly that the matter will be addressed in a few days time, Nandlall noted. That, however, was since last week.
This newspaper had reported that the findings of the joint team were not among the evidence submitted by the DPP to Justice Chang and asked about this, Nandlall said that the entire file which was reviewed by the DPP was submitted to the court. “The file which was submitted to the DPP for review was transmitted to the court upon the court’s request,” he said adding that it was given to the court by the deputy Solicitor General.
