Dear Editor,
With reference to the “threats recording” scandal involving the Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Anil Nandlall, perhaps a few things should be pointed out. Firstly, it is curious that the normally press hungry Minister himself has not responded directly, choosing instead to be shielded by a press release nebulously put out by “government”.
This is unacceptable, although it is standard PPP procedure to campaign as individuals when usurping the resources of the state to show much they “care”, but quickly becoming anonymous and monolithic when circling the wagons around the indefensible. Implicit in the term “government” is usually the addendum “and people” – as one of those people, the government’s shameful statement on the more shameful conduct of its chief legal officer is not representative of me.
Either President Ramotar, or the Attorney-General himself is obligated to directly respond to this fiasco instead of hiding being the shield of an impersonal GINA press release, particularly one which by default acknowledges that the recording does in fact feature the voice of Mr. Nandlall variously admitting to at least unethical use of government funds, to knowledge of criminal activity, to knowledge of violent criminal intent, and implying his own capacity with regard to same.
Secondly, Mr. Nandlall needs to clarify whether he retains the opinion that surreptitiously obtained recordings can be deemed fair game within the law if the content they reveal, particularly considering the stature of the parties involved, can be considered to be in the interest of democratic freedom of expression. In case he forgot his 2006 perspective, let me quote the critical part of the correspondence in which he says, “I respectfully submit that, even if the law afforded a right to privacy in Guyana, having regard to the nature of the matters contained in the recorded conversation, and the status and standing of the persons allegedly engaged in that conversation, that right to privacy would have had to bend and bow to the constitutional right to free expression.”
I only ask because this seems to be in contrast with his recent plaintive, if jurisprudentially deficient, Facebook lament with regard to his own recording debut, which reads in part, “We live in tragic times. When the sanctity of privacy is removed from communications between humans, the human element is removed from human relations and thereafter, man’s status is reduced to that of animals.”
Finally, I unfortunately have to point out that nowhere in the government’s jargonistic and shameless defence of Mr. Nandlall is there any disavowal of the damning and dangerous public security environment he describes, where forces known to the Attorney-General are intent upon or at the cusp of meting out violence not simply against Lall but his staff, regardless of their role in the newspaper’s operations.
This is particularly damning considering the slaughter of Kaieteur News’ pressmen some years ago, and the abysmal rate of violent and unsolved crime that grips this society today.
The ‘government’ in fact seems to be perfectly at ease in letting that cloud of fear hang over the situation, despite the fact of Mr. Lall, in tears, expressing a fear for his life and that of his staff, and going as far as making an official complaint to the Commissioner of Police. The PPP appears to be increasingly devoid of any decency its public pronouncements and increasingly rabid in its defence of the indefensible actions of its senior membership.
Yours faithfully,
Ruel Johnson
