Dear Editor,
The spectacle that unfolded at the Attorney General’s office on Thursday March 19, 2026, by a man under the shadow of serious legal and international sanctions, in the name of court compliance, raises a whole host of very serious issues.
Let’s be clear from the outset, what transpired at the Attorney General’s office on that day could hardly be considered compliance – rather, it had all the appearance of a brazen, calculated mockery of the court and the rule of law by a constitutional officeholder who leaves the distinct impression that the law does not apply to him.
There were multiple lawful and straightforward ways to satisfy the court judgment, even for a sanctioned individual: through legal counsel, certified funds, or third-party payment. Instead, the country was subjected to a vulgar display of wheelbarrows filled with cash, being paraded (and filmed) to the Attorney General’s office. This was not necessity—it was contempt, carefully stage-managed for attention and to embarrass the country’s top law officer. Leaving aside the childishness and immaturity of such behaviour, the level of arrogance and contempt cannot be overstated.
The attempt to justify this conduct on the basis that the cash constituted “legal tender” is equally hollow and absurd. Yes, banknotes are legal tender—but the law does not require a public office to accept payment in a manner that is disorderly, unsafe, and administratively unworkable. Legal tender cannot be used as a licence to impose chaos on public institutions, especially from the holder of a constitutional office. Compliance must be lawful—but it must also be reasonable, orderly, and in good faith. What occurred at the Attorney General’s office on March 19 was none of these.
The implications of such behaviour from anyone would be deeply troubling but it is absolutely horrendous coming from a constitutional officeholder. In any functioning financial system, the public display of such large volumes of cash immediately raises some very serious questions: Where did this money come from? Was it ever lawfully declared? Were the funds taxed appropriately? Are anti-money laundering controls being subverted? At a minimum, this raises legitimate questions that warrant serious scrutiny.
Even more problematic for the sanctioned individual is that this stunt may have backfired spectacularly. The courts, including the CCJ, would not be amused by such antics, bordering on contempt. Moreover, this behaviour has likely caught the attention of law enforcement officials in multiple jurisdictions.
One cannot claim to be a victim of sanctions and exclusion from the banking system, while simultaneously parading wheelbarrows of untraceable cash in public, apparently for posterity and the perverse amusement of the sanctioned individual and his dwindling band of supporters. This is exactly the type of conduct that reinforces precisely why those sanctions were imposed in the first place.
However, equally alarming is the apparent collapse of basic security protocols at government offices. How does an individual simply arrive without an appointment at the Attorney General’s office with wheelbarrows full of cash? Where was security? Are ministerial offices now open-access facilities where anyone can walk in unannounced and unscreened? Why was he not stopped at the gate? This signals a dangerous lapse in state security, especially when the individual involved is facing serious legal proceedings. If this can happen at the office of the Attorney General, then where exactly are the lines of basic state security drawn?
Some of the camp followers may find this stunt amusing but it is not. As stated earlier, the courts and law enforcement across multiple jurisdictions are likely to take a dim view of such behaviour. However, it also sets a reckless and dangerous precedent. If the holder of a high constitutional office can treat a court order with such open disdain, what message does that send to ordinary citizens? That compliance with the law is a joke?
There is also a professional question that cannot be ignored. Was this disgraceful conduct advised or sanctioned by his legal counsel? If so, it raises serious concerns about professional ethics and whether this issue should have caught the attention of the Bar Association.
This is no laughing matter. It is a direct affront to the administration of justice, to institutional integrity, and to the very idea of the rule of law. Those responsible at every level must be held to account.