There will be no disputing that each of us is entitled to private conversations and musings. Were all these conversations to be at risk of disclosure there will be far less oral communication, an inversion of the cultural changes wrought by the cellphone era. Technological advances have also put more and more of these conversations at risk of interception and this is now a fact of life.
It remains to be established what both parties to the call placed by Attorney General Anil Nandlall two Saturdays ago knew about the recording of the conversation. Whatever the truth, the conversation made its way into the public domain. What was intended to be a private conversation has now spilled widely and pruriently into the open and that is what all parties who have an interest in this matter must address. The content of the conversation, without a doubt, should and has evoked alarum.
Considering that the Attorney General is the Leader of the Bar, the principal legal adviser to the government and the respondent in any matter against the state, the Office of the President was immediately expected to ensure that the dignity, sanctity and standing of the office were preserved and not threatened as a result of the contents of this call. At this point it was no longer a case of who violated whose privacy and with what motive. The cold, hard truth was that the conversation had become public and the utterances were now a matter of public record to be weighed in relation to the occupant of the Office of Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs. The government seemed not to understand this. Its reaction on the same day that the damning transcript was released, pledging unremitting support to Mr Nandlall without the slightest hint of conditionality, underlined for the umpteenth time that President Ramotar is simply not up to the task of running this country, although in this case there may also have been an element of self-preservation. At the very minimum, it behoved the Office of the President to express concern at the content of the conversation and to seek an explanation from the Attorney General. Asking Mr Nandlall to step aside while the integrity of the conversation was established would then have followed. Indeed, when the former Police Commissioner, Mr Winston Felix found himself in the same plight as the AG, following the interception and broadcasting of one of his calls through the agency of now convicted drug trafficker Roger Khan, the Jagdeo administration deputed Prime Minister Hinds to seek an explanation of the contents of the phone conversation. President Ramotar has failed to implement the required process of discovery and it is difficult to see how the administration’s stance in this matter can be retrieved.
The usually forthcoming Attorney General has been uncharacteristically reticent on this matter save for swift recourse to the courts against Kaieteur News. It would seem that his action was intended to thwart the authenticating of the conversation and any considered discussion of this matter. It is a futile step by the AG as all of the media, particularly social media platforms, will intently dissect every single fibre of this matter and will arrive at conclusions and share these beyond the ability of Mr Nandlall to prohibit this flow. One would have thought that an enlightened first approach by the AG would have been an attempt to explain the statement. There has been no such attempt by Mr Nandlall. Perhaps the conversation and his role in it were indefensible and this was recognized early. His sheltering behind sub judice and an airy declaration that a private conversation with a school friend had been breached and distorted will have no credibility.
Holding the hallowed positions of Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs requires Mr Nandlall to ensure that his office is beyond reproach and not subverted. This was the standard that confronted Mr Nandlall on Monday when the KN proprietor turned up at Police Headquarters, Eve Leary to lodge his complaint. An enormous responsibility was placed on Mr Nandlall’s shoulders in 2011 by President Ramotar when he chose him for the Cabinet and it was Mr Nandlall’s mandate to magisterially defend this trust on the release of the recording. He chose, however, the option of limiting discourse even though he must have been aware of the public’s right to an explication of the conversation.
With neither the government nor Mr Nandlall taking up the obligation of defending their vulnerabilities, it has been left to the wider public and institutions to draw their own conclusions and to demand requisite action. Many of the matters in the conversation pertain to a series of issues familiar to the public. Triangulation of these reference points pins Mr Nandlall into a very difficult position. The reference to his uncle and the charges against the KN proprietor are only two of these that make the voice at one end of the conversation uniquely his.
Any objective evaluation of the content indicts Mr. Nandlall. The declaration in the conversation that persons with guns could storm into the office of KN and do harm because of its reportage is beyond the pale. No official in Mr Nandlall’s position in a real democracy can withstand association with language of that type. The rule of law which underpins the AG’s office became a mere figment in the conversation.
It didn’t end there. The lascivious inquiries about a female reporter on behalf of an uncle, the reported use of public monies for a private matter, the rants, knowledge of criminal acts which have not been pursued and a range of other incriminating and unsavoury utterances littered the conversation. Without any other explanation, these matters via the recording have become part of the AG’s public record. An office as important as this cannot withstand even an iota of what was spoken about in this conversation. On this basis, it is evident that Mr Nandlall’s position is now untenable. With his government abdicating its responsibility to investigate this recording, the other option would have been for him to accept responsibility for his statements and to tender his resignation. He has not done so. He should do so.
Whenever it is convened, Parliament has a duty to investigate the conversation and to demand of Mr Nandlall an explanation.
The public has become accustomed to the government circling the wagons when a minister or senior official is in trouble. It was a feature of the Jagdeo administration and has continued into the Ramotar administration. The NCN scandal and the under-the-influence accident case of the Finance Minister are prime examples. In this particular case, Mr Nandlall referenced a discussion between the wife of the KN proprietor, Mrs Bhena Lall and President Ramotar with the apparent intention of alleviating charges in return for more favourable coverage from her husband’s newspaper. In the evasiveness that has greeted the conversation, the president’s office has made no attempt to refute or explain the statement. It must be explained otherwise it exposes both the President and Mr Nandlall to the accusation of possible deal making on the question of criminal charges. This is another reason why President Ramotar’s sidestepping of the gravamen of the conversation is wholly unacceptable.
There are many other elements to this scandal which have to be addressed such as the responsibilities of the media and the manner in which women are disrespected. However at this juncture the issue that has to be addressed frontally is the indecent threat to the standing of the office of the Attorney General because of the statements blurted out by Mr Nandlall in this sordid conversation. The Attorney General should do the honourable thing and resign.
