Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter written by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr Basil Williams, published in the August 24 edition of your newspaper (‘The Deeds Registry has always been administered by the government and not the judiciary’). It is in response to a letter of mine published earlier. This letter contains some bold but inexact asseverations which I feel compelled to repudiate for the public record.
The letter begins thus: “I write in relation to a letter published in the Stabroek News … under the caption the ‘JSC has power to appoint the Deputy Registrar of Deeds.’ Editor, I agree with the caption because it is the APNU+AFC Government which made this possible”.
This is a crude and deliberate untruth. In the very letter to which the Attorney General (AG) is responding, I explained the genesis of the power which the Judical Service Commission (JSC) enjoys in respect of the appointment of the Deputy Registrar of Deeds. I did so because previously, the Attorney General had publicly expressed his unfamiliarity regarding the origin of this power which the JSC wields. For his edification, I imparted in my letter that this provision was the product of the constitutional reform process 1999-2001. Obviously, the PPP/C was in government at the time. In fact, neither the APNU nor the AFC were even in existence at that time and they were some 15 years away from the seat of government. Therefore, the learned Attorney General’s crediting an APNU+AFC government with this accomplishment is, indeed, paranormal. Inexplicably, while the Attorney General seeks to credit his government for the JSC enjoying the power to appoint the Deputy Registrar of Deeds, for the remainder of the letter, he denounces this very power and oddly argues for its rescission!
The learned Attorney General then makes a similar wacky accusation: that the independence of constitutional bodies was “emasculated during the 23 years of PPP/C rule including the Judicial Service Commission (JSC)”. The truth is that in 23 years of PPP/C governance, no minister has ever created the type of public spectacle in relation to any independent constitutional institution, remotely close to the magnitude of the one which Mr Williams has recently precipitated in relation to the JSC. In fact, in 23 years, no Attorney General of the PPP/C administration was ever, publicly, accused of interfering with the functions of the JSC and certainly, none was ever sued in relation thereto. In just 15 months, the incumbent has accomplished them all.
The learned Attorney General’s recent obsession with these powers of appointment of the JSC is quite intriguing. These powers were being exercised by the JSC for the last 15 years. Prior to now, not once has Mr Williams ever, publicly, expressed a murmur about them. That it is one of his recent discoveries is the only rational conclusion.
The learned Attorney General adumbrates an exhaustive and exhausting raft of reasons why the JSC ought not to be vested with powers of appointment in respect of the Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Deeds. Unfortunately, these arguments are over 16 years late. His colleagues, Haslyn Parris, Deryck Bernard, Winston Murray, Vincent Alexander, Rupert Roopnaraine, Moses Nagamootoo, Khemraj Ramjattan, inter alia, all played a pivotal role in effecting those, among nearly 200, changes, to the 1980 constitution, during the 1999-2001 constitutional reform process. Those who are still around may wish to enlighten the Attorney General of the rationale that inspired those constitutional amendments which he now, belatedly, finds objectionable.
However, as regards the Deeds Registry, the Attorney General can extract solace from the fact that the JSC’s powers are confined only to the appointment of the Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Deeds. They do not extend beyond.
In my considered view and for the reasons which I have intimated above, the apprehension expressed by the AG that the “smooth and effective running” of the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority could be “undermined” by the JSC “simply inserting a Registrar and Deputy Registrar of its choice” and the resultant “anarchy” which the AG fears, as expressed in the last paragraph of his letter, maybe an expression of paranoia and nothing else.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP
