It must be either complete discombobulation in the thinking of the government, pressure from some external source or a ploy to buy time which prompted Cabinet Secretary, Dr Roger Luncheon to announce on Thursday that the administration was attempting to authenticate the contents of the vulgar and threatening conversation between the Attorney General Mr Anil Nandlall and a Kaieteur News reporter. After all, just hours after the KN proprietor had complained to the police of a threat to the newspaper and his staff by the AG, the government rushed to his defence and discounted any possibility of wrongdoing. In a strange statement which tried to set the government on a pedestal, the Ramotar administration declared that the recording had been manipulated to distort and added “We stand by the Attorney General, as the Government of Guyana goes out of its way to foster peace and goodwill. We believe in the integrity and professionalism of the Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr Anil Nandlall, and stand by him”. A ringing statement of support even though up to that point the government had not remotely considered the first step, trying to determine the integrity of the conversation. Belief in the integrity and professionalism of the Attorney General was of course no substitute for a dispassionate analysis of the recording.
A week later, the tune has changed. While saying that Mr Nandlall retained the support of the government, Dr Luncheon told his weekly post-Cabinet press briefing, according to GINA: “Our efforts are minimally two-fold; to investigate scientifically, technologically our concerns of how authentic the content of the recording is, and then you might say in our usual parlance we have to deal with the fallout of establishing authentic content”. This local and overseas investigation which Dr Luncheon has referred to clearly leaves open the prospect that if the recording could be authenticated the government would have to deal with the various unsavoury elements of it which could then result in action against the AG.
Perhaps the same pressure which moved the government on Thursday caused Mr Nandlall to break his stony silence and release the text of his remarks on Tuesday to a staff gathering at the Ministry of Legal Affairs. This unusual technique was used to shape his defence and will presumably lead the way to a detailed investigation of the content of the recording. His remarks encompassed the most dangerous element of the conversation, to wit, his warning the reporter of an imminent attack on KN over its reportage and appearing to have knowledge of such. This warning raised concerns among international press groups and the AG may have taken cognizance of this. After previously claiming distortion of the conversation, Mr Nandlall in his remarks on Tuesday disclaimed any knowledge of any attack against a newspaper or reporter. He also tried to make amends for the debased conversation pertaining to a Kaieteur News reporter, assuring all women in Guyana of his highest respect, and noting that it had attracted harsh judgements from the women in his life. He also professed his support for press freedom and attempted to explain the reported use of government funds for a private health issue. His statement, more importantly, affirms that these matters did form part of his conversation with the reporter.
However, nothing that the government or Mr Nandlall has said since the release of the recording has alleviated the crisis they both face. The government remains under scrutiny for these shocking statements by the Leader of the Bar and must be mindful of the image of the country and the possible unwillingness of his overseas counterparts to do business with him. For Mr Nandlall, his standing in the legal fraternity has touched a nadir following the call from the Guyana Bar Association and the Guyana Association of Women Lawyers for him to resign or be removed and his explanations last week are unlikely to change this position. His position as AG remains untenable.
As we stated in last week’s editorial, there are other attributes of the conversation that bear scrutiny and comment. The moment the AG suggested in the conversation that violence could possibly be employed against a newspaper because of its reportage constituted the most direct attack on press freedom and one that should be taken seriously and addressed immediately. This is what the KN proprietor Mr Glenn Lall promptly and correctly seized upon in his complaint to the police. He has also cited it as evidence of a wider attack against his newspaper.
Listening to the conversation, it is clear that Mr Nandlall and the reporter Mr Leonard Gildarie had been in regular contact and that the latter enjoyed the confidence of the AG. The conversation begins with concern about the alleged misreporting of Mr Nandlall’s uncle and moves on to the crude enquiries about the female KN reporter. Riddled with expletives, the conversation then meanders to the threatening passage against KN. The threat comes in the middle of the conversation. Yet there was no attempt by Mr Gildarie, who later professed fear for his life, to upbraid the AG, to warn him about his words or to move to terminate the call. The conversation then moves on, addressing a whole range of topics and even returning to the AG’s insistence on knowing the identity of the KN reporter. Still there is no protest by Mr Gildarie about the AG’s disturbing remarks. The conversation ends without any recriminations.
Another dissonant note to the conversation is the AG’s assertion that he had stated the same threat as was made to Mr Gildarie to the KN Editor, Mr Adam Harris on the same day. It is unclear why this threat didn’t form the basis for a complaint against the Attorney General, prior to the conversation with Mr Gildarie, given its alarming nature.
To date neither the President nor Mr Nandlall has addressed the contention that President Ramotar had been in negotiations with the wife of the KN proprietor Ms Bhena Lall over the tax evasion charges which were brought against her and her husband by the Guyana Revenue Authority. Any such negotiation would strike at the foundation of the rule of law and cannot be treated with lightly. An explanation on this should be forthcoming from the President, the AG and the Lalls.
There should indeed be a full investigation of this recording but also of all references which denote breaches of the law and conduct unbecoming of senior public servants.
