Dear Editor,
I was shocked, offended and disappointed in Anil Nandlall (Guyana’s Attorney General) when I read that he delivered the opening remarks at the launch of Dialogue Solutions’ mediation service in Guyana. That Nandlall would welcome the company by saying “government was fully committed to the initiative to cultivate confidence among international investors that Guyana is a competent gold-standard arbitration venue” is a slap in the face of the certified Guyanese mediators who ply their trade with great distinction. Jamela Ali S.C., Kashir Khan, and Teni Housty come readily to mind. However, this is not the only reason I find Nandlall’s speech offensive.
It is Nandlall’s endorsement of a mediation venture where the local Principal (Nigel Hughes) is well known for his political bias (Chairman of the Alliance for Change) and has exhibited a series of eccentric behaviours. Nigel Hughes is not a certified mediator and worse, given Hughes’ actions in the past it would be a departure from his norm to expect impartial treatment should he perceive you to be from the ‘other’ side.
I would not recommend a foreign company for mediation when high-quality mediation exists locally and further, a company that has failed to exercise due diligence in its first engagement with Guyana. For their edification I suggest they look no further than Nigel Hughes’ own words in his 2000 word epistle “How are we going to share the corn 2020” to see evidence of racial/political bias in the mind of their local partner as this diatribe is filled with inaccuracies and pseudo-historical facts to support the claims that there is an Indo-dominance in Guyana, phrases include: “Our main ethnic blocks have repeatedly reaffirmed their preference to be governed by their own kind”, “The numbers have always, by design, been against the Africans” and “We are not a nation and have never had any pretensions of being one” as Hughes exposes his mindset.
Should Dialogue Solutions want to delve deeper to ascertain the standards of their chosen advocate, I offer the following points on the compass for guidance.
A plethora of bizarre incidents such as the man on the roof overlooking the seawall but ‘true north’ lies with Hughes inventive mathematical formula that brought shame and disgrace to the entire nation. In suggesting that 33 was not the majority of 65, Hughes lured a desperate (then) President Granger and his Cabinet into a web of ignorance and eventual status as ‘dunces’ as the argument made them (Granger and Co) the laughing stock of the Caribbean. It was Justice Anderson of the Caribbean Court of Justice who put it best when he said “even little children know that 33 is the majority of 65” in dismissing that argument. Nigel Hughes is not someone who can be trusted to mediate or be involved in impartial mediation.
As for the Attorney General/Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, I would recommend he exercise caution when endorsing companies and individuals as there is an implication that he is speaking for the administration. He needs to exercise maturity and discretion in his words and actions; “not every tin cup knack is a party” is offered.
Sincerely
Robin Singh