AG’s meekness at CCJ shows limits of power

Dear Editor,

As the Mohameds’ extradition case moves to the Caribbean Court of Justice, Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s live-interview meekness exposes a long pattern of executive overreach—proving that, where real accountability exists, even the most powerful eventually learn to listen.

In a live interview following Wednesday’s case management conference at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Attorney General Anil Nandlall struck an unusually restrained tone. He praised the “aggressive” timetable set by the regional court for hearing the Mohameds’ appeal and even urged restraint from public commentators, asking that people “await the conclusion on April 21.”

For those familiar with Nandlall’s past performances in domestic legal controversies, this sudden show of temperance was nothing short of astonishing. The same Attorney General who routinely delivered expansive commentary on cases sub judice—often with the air of one lecturing rather than litigating—now genuflected before judicial propriety. His new reverence for “preserving the status quo” and “respecting the process” appeared to emerge only once the matter transcended local jurisdiction—beyond the reach of his accustomed theatrics.

The CCJ’s steady hand has, it seems, brought the Attorney General—and by extension, his chorus of propagandists—crashing back to reality. In Georgetown’s media ecosystem, where partisan spin masquerades as precedent, the ruling party’s legal spokespersons have often treated courtrooms as political stages. But under the firm, no-nonsense supervision of the CCJ, that carefully curated illusion appears to have collapsed.

The same legal minds who once served as amplifiers for Nandlall’s self-assured pronouncements are now forced to acknowledge the distinction between the real and the fabricated. The CCJ, operating beyond the domestic orbit of influence, offers a useful mirror—one that reflects truth without distortion. And faced with that mirror, the Attorney General’s once-booming confidence has dwindled into carefully measured lines about process, propriety, and patience.

To be clear, the CCJ has not yet ruled on the Mohameds’ appeal. What it has done, however, is reassert something far more important: the primacy of judicial integrity over political bravado. Its handling of this matter—with defined timelines, explicit directions, and insistence on dispatch—has restored the sense of gravity long missing from the Attorney General’s approach to legal commentary.

Beyond this single case lies a much larger truth that can no longer be ignored. Guyana’s political class has grown far too comfortable blurring the boundaries between Cabinet authority and courtroom independence. The Attorney General’s self-censorship before the CCJ is not a testament to newfound respect; it is a reminder that the limits of executive power become visible only where external accountability exists.

Whatever the outcome of this case, it should serve as a beacon to those in authority—that power, no matter how entrenched, ultimately bends to the weight of public pressure and institutional integrity. For all the bluster and control exerted at home, the AG’s newfound humility before the region’s final court proves an enduring truth: the rule of law, when liberated from influence, has a way of bringing even the most powerful back down to earth.