It is very clear Attorney General Basil Williams, SC, does not care where he draws the line between being the Attorney General (AG) of Guyana and being the ordinary criminal lawyer in private practice he used to be. Art 112 (1) says, “There shall be an Attorney General of Guyana who shall be the principal legal advisor to the government of Guyana and who shall be appointed by the President.” Mr Williams wears another hat by virtue of Art 185 (2) which states, “If the Attorney General is an elected member of the National Assembly at the time of his appointment or subsequently becomes such a member, he shall be a Minister by virtue of holding the office of Attorney General.”
The role of an AG is of great antiquity in the English system of governance which we have based our own practices. It harks back to the early 13th century from the “attornus Regis”, or “King’s attorney,” was both the legal representative of the King, the royal government as well as the “parens patriae”, or “guardian of public interests.” The role of the AG should not be debased or brought into disrepute lightly or capriciously.
In his paper, “The Attorney General, Politics and the Judiciary”, the Hon. L.J. King AC QC declared: “Because of the difficulty of reconciling the impartiality and even-handedness required for the proper discharge of the Attorney-General’s legal and quasi-judicial functions with the demands of partisan politics, there arose in England a notion described as “independent aloofness”. The notion was that the Attorney General should not be involved in questions of government policy or too closely in policy debates within government, should not engage in robust political debate except in relation to his own portfolio and should be generally reticent and non-confrontational with respect to party politics.”
Mr Williams has displayed anything but “judicial aloofness” during the past two years, where there have been a slew of decisions by the Court that has gone against him in his role as AG. This has raised deep concerns, especially in legal circles, as to whether the Government of Guyana is well served in its legal representation. The matter of the attempted expropriation of the land owned by the government’s Ambassador to Canada is only one case in point. If the advisory role of the AG is grounded on claims not based on accepted legal norms, but are rather emanating from a politised perspective that reflects the third hat worn by Mr Williams – that of Chairman of the PNC – then ultimately this will not only lower the standing of the government but bring it all too frequently in front of the Judiciary, which is a co-equal arm of government.
The AG’s recent decision to make public his legal opinion to President David Granger on Justice Holder’s letter to the Chancellor of the Judiciary concerning the incident in front of the Judge in his court illustrates the concerns on his suitability for his high office, and indeed his recent elevation to the rank of “Senior Counsel”. The learned Judge’s mature decision to avoid an open confrontation with Mr Williams, because of his office, and thereby heading off a clash between the Executive and the Judiciary has now been churlishly, if puerilely, challenged by the latter on a claim of “Functus officio”. Mr Williams makes the elementary mistake of invoking a principle that concerns a decision already rendered, rather than simply withheld.
This is a perfect illustration of Mr Williams’ insistence on not only refusing to look at his wider responsibilities to the people of Guyana, but indeed the Executive of which he is a member and the President at whose will he serves. No one knows how the Chronicle was able to obtain a copy of Justice Holder’s letter to the Chancellor (ag) but it is clear that Mr Williams open salvo intends to muddy and possibly bully, the Head of the Judiciary as she contemplates a response to Judge Holder.
