Dear Editor,
Reference is made to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Award No. ICC 22527/ASM/JPA dated July 29, 2019 (ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V v. Corporacion de Venezolana de Petroleo, S.A, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A). The 2019 award came up before Justice Gino Persaud on July 26th for recognition and enforcement in Guyana, precedents of which have occurred in the US and UK and, closer to home, Trinidad and Jamaica, among other jurisdictions. For some peculiar reason known only to himself, Guyana’s Attorney General, Mr. Anil Nandlall, SC., ventured into territory best not violated. It’s what a practitioner of his erudition surely would have been better advised to leave alone. The result was that AG Nandlall, having overstepped his bounds, by a wide margin, experienced what it was to have a mountain collapse on his head. The chief law officer of the State’s attack on the integrity of the Guyana court was met with an avalanche that buried him. I trust that AG Nandlall is duly chastened, will humble himself henceforth.
Justice Persaud gave short shrift to the AG’s public policy argument as the rationale for denying recognition and enforcement of the ICC award in Guyana. It was an argument that had little to no weight, since the respondents “opted not to contest” the proceedings for the enforcement of the 2019 arbitral award in Guyana. Justice Persaud settled for the veiled contempt of “misconceived” argument. But then the jurist, one that I hail as among the independents in Guyana’s judicial firmament, was forced to hand Mr. Nandlall his head on a platter. According to Justice Persaud’s ruling, paragraphs 69 and 71 which questioned the patriotism of Guyana’s court, intruded upon and besmirched its independence. Offensive it is. There are a couple of lessons for AG Nandlall, which I take it upon myself to weigh-in on: not to humiliate him with, but to drill into him, so that he refrains from repeating his egregious mistakes.
First, Senior Counsel Nandlall should not usurp unto himself monopoly rights to patriotism, nor should he hint verbally or in writing at the lack of such a sacred quality, value, in any entity or person. His sitting in the chair of Attorney General should, at least, function as a bar to such excess. Second, Mr. Nandlall should know better, regardless of the capacity he is operating – citizen, senior political player, officer of the court – than to entertains ideas that he is the sole font of intellect in this country. Flexibility with the level of aptitude at his disposal, yes; but regarding the superiority of such, it is my hard duty to cut the ground from under his feet. It is not something done willingly or gleefully, but as a matter of unavoidable duty. It is my belief that Mr. Nandlall is sufficiently equipped to know not to lean into, nor sneer at, nor dare to question, the independence of the judiciary. Not even the most infinitesimal reference to such independence is to be allowed. Nor held as a preemptive sword of Attila held over the head of Guyana’s judiciary, then wielded with some degree of recklessness. That’s how I assessed the situation.
It is heartening that a young Justice Gino Persaud was courageous enough to set straight Mr. Mohabir Anil Nandlall, AG, SC, MP and set him right. I agree with Justice Persaud: AG Nandlall is not the “legal guardian of the minds of the Guyanese people.” And paras 69 and 71 embody an “offensive submission if not a veiled threat to the independence of the judiciary designed to intimidate the court.” Last, there is agreement that the AG’s submission was more of an “opportunistic political argument best suited to the hustings of a political campaign.” Then the coup de grace, the AG should neither accuse nor lecture the judiciary. Most of all, the judiciary cannot afford to be seen as “timorous” in the light of the position and destination that Guyana has metamorphosed into before the world. In toto, the AG’s submissions didn’t meet the soundness test.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall
