Dear Editor,
I wish to place on record my longstanding respect for the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Senior Counsel Anil Nandlall.
He is widely regarded as one of the most formidable legal minds in Guyana, with an exceptional grasp of constitutional law that few of his contemporaries can rival. His contributions to legal discourse and constitutional development are well known and, in many respects, unmatched by the many contenders for his job.
I know for sure Mr. Sanjeev Datadin and Mr. Davindra Kissoon cannot match his grasp of the Constitution and the quality of his legal arguments.
It is precisely for this reason that his recent public characterisation of the presumptive Leader of the Opposition as a “fugitive offender” is so concerning. This description represents a departure from the legal precision, constitutional restraint, and respect for due process for which the Mr. Nandalal is best known.
At the outset, it must be stated clearly that a person who is before a court, has been arrested, granted bail, and is actively participating in judicial proceedings cannot, in law or logic, be described as a fugitive. A fugitive is someone who flees from justice or deliberately evades the jurisdiction of the court. That is not the factual or legal position presently before the Guyanese courts in relation to Mr. Azruddin Mohamed, the incoming Leader of the Opposition.
Indeed, it has been publicly stated that Mr. Mohamed’s legal representatives have communicated their client’s willingness to cooperate fully with the authorities and to present himself whenever required. Such conduct is inconsistent with any accepted definition of fugitivity.
The Attorney General is, of course, well versed in one of the most fundamental principles guarded by our Constitution: the presumption of innocence. Extradition proceedings are not determinations of guilt. An indictment in a foreign jurisdiction is not a conviction, and extradition proceedings are procedural rather than punitive. To suggest that the mere existence of such proceedings constitutes a “stain” on Guyana’s constitutional order risks implying guilt prior to adjudication—an implication wholly inconsistent with the rule of law that the Attorney General is sworn to uphold.
Equally troubling is the framing of the issue as one in which concerns over delays in the election of a Leader of the Opposition are portrayed as secondary or trivial. The timely functioning of Parliament and the proper constitution of its leadership are core democratic requirements, not administrative inconveniences. One constitutional concern should not be diminished in order to amplify another—particularly where the latter remains sub judice.
In constitutional terms, it must also be noted that the Attorney General has no locus standi—that is, no legal authority—to intervene in, direct, or supervise the internal administrative or procedural functions of the Office of the Speaker of the National Assembly. While the Attorney General is entitled to speak on matters of law in his capacity as Chief Legal Adviser to the Government, public commentary on the operational affairs of the Speaker’s Office risks blurring the separation of powers.
When political advocacy is advanced under the guise of legal authority, it may fairly be described as actus temerarius in iure—a legally reckless act. Labeling a political figure a “fugitive offender” while proceedings are ongoing risks prejudicing the judicial process, misleading the public, and eroding confidence in the impartiality of the magistracy. It is not the role of the Attorney General to pronounce verdicts in the court of public opinion.
In conclusion, strong institutions are built on restraint, accuracy, and respect for due process—not rhetorical escalation. The Attorney General’s intervention, rather than safeguarding constitutional integrity, risks undermining it by substituting legal nuance with political narrative.
Guyana’s democracy is best served when courts determine guilt, Parliament governs itself in accordance with the Constitution, and senior law officers speak with precision rather than provocation. Anything less diminishes the very institutions the Attorney General rightly claims to defend.