Criticism must always remain a two-way street for freedoms to abundantly flourish

Dear Editor,
I respond to the editorial published on August 2, 2024, in the Stabroek News with the caption “The AG and the Judiciary”. The thematic thrust of the editorial canvasses the assertion that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) is intolerant of dissenting views. To illustrate his point, the Editor chose the unfortunate critical comments by Justice Gino Persaud of certain submissions made by the Attorney General Chambers in a case in which the Judge recently rendered a ruling.
The PPP/C’s demonstrable commitment to free expression and democratic norms is supported by a veritable track record of 75 years’ vintage. It hardly requires my endorsement or defence of it. However, when criticism is unfair and unfounded, we will exercise our undoubted reciprocal legal and democratic right of reply. From this posture, we shall not shirk. It is a venerable fact of life grounded in public morality, that those who condescend to publicly lecture others, must ensure that if the searchlight is turned inwards, it does not illuminate their own similar transgressions. That would be duplicitous, nay hypocrisy. Embracing dissenting views is not a mere courtesy but an inalienable tenet of free expression.
As the main purveyor of free expression, the Fourth Estate is not exempt. When its Deficiencies are highlighted, it must not seek refuge under the shelter of “press freedom under attack”. Criticism must always remain a two-way street for freedoms to abundantly flourish.
The reading public must, by now, be acutely aware of the numerous articles written by Mr Frederick Kissoon, accusing the Stabroek News of publishing the views of commentators who write critically of the Government but refusing to publish replies supportive of the Government from Dr Randy Persaud. Stabroek News has never defended this accusation. Its veracity is, therefore, inferred.
Stabroek News runs a blog online which preponderates with commentaries critical of the PPP/C and the PPP/C Administration. This blog publishes the most toxic and unwarranted criticisms of our government and its officials by anonymous bloggers. The Editor exercises discretion in what is permitted to be published. I know of dozens of persons who made innumerable attempts to get their views published on this blog in response to this daily tirade of baseless and malicious attacks, but were never able to get past the Editor’s guillotine.
The irreversible inference is that it is the editorial policy to permit this blog to overwhelmingly criticise the Government.
Lastly, I am aware of two commentators who recently wrote letters for publication in the Letters Column of Stabroek News critical of Justice Gino Persaud’s pronouncements. These letters were never published by Stabroek News. They were published by other media outlets. Yet, I have seen at least one letter published by Stabroek News in support of Justice Persaud.
I have provided these indubitable examples to demonstrate that Stabroek News, by its own conduct, lacks the moral authority to publicly pass judgement on the issue of being intolerant of dissent. Unfortunately, the duplicity does not end there. I will continue to illustrate.
I am not at all surprised that Stabroek News came out batting resiliently for Justice Persaud. When the learned Judge handed down the ruling by Zoom, no reporter from any news outlet was present. The Attorney General’s Chambers did not inform the press. If the Attorneys-at-Law on the other side did so, it is hardly likely that they would have been selective in their dissemination. Only two news agencies carried the Judge’s ruling, Demerara Waves and Stabroek News. It is equally not surprising that the very day Stabroek News carried the story as its front page lead, it also carried a letter written by GHK Lall supportive of the sentiments expressed by the Judge. I have issued a public statement comprising over 1200 words trying to explain to the reading public the legal issues that were before the Court. I am again unsurprised that in its elongated editorial, the Editor generously quotes from the Judge, but mentions not a word of my response. It is very simple for the reading public to untangle the web. We know of each other’s connections.
That the case in question touches on and concerns Guyana’s territorial integrity, national security, and the existential threat that we face from Venezuela cannot be disputed. Like Justice Persaud, the editorial chose to ignore this reality, though irrefutable evidence of this was placed before the Court in an Affidavit from the Solicitor General of Guyana. It is on these evidential matters that the legal submissions were predicated. How these legal submissions with supporting judicial authorities from across the Commonwealth were mischaracterised to be “a veiled threat to the independence of the Judiciary” and “an opportunistic political argument perhaps best suited to the hustings of an elections campaign”, I cannot explain.

The Editor follows the Judge hook, line, and sinker by pointing out that the foreign award that was sought to be registered in Guyana, was already registered in the UK, USA, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Trinidad, Netherlands, and Portugal. However, like the Judge, he fails to tell us which one of those countries faces a bellicose existential threat of invasion by Venezuela. The comparison is bewildering.
For the record, it is axiomatic and trite law that what amounts to a threat to national security and sovereignty are always matters for the Executive to determine and never the Judiciary. This is an elementary but universal principle of law deeply grounded in the separation of powers doctrine. “Those who are responsible for national security must be the sole judges of what national security requires,” [per Lord Parker, The Zamora, L.R. [1916] 2 A.C. 77]. In the case under review, there was no shortage of evidence before the Court that Guyana’s national security and territorial integrity could be affected. “Once the factual basis is established by evidence so that the Court is satisfied that the interest of national security is a relevant factor to be considered in the determination of the case, the Court would accept the opinion of the Crown or its responsibility of icers as to what is required to meet it …” [per Lord Scarman, Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374]. Having submitted incontrovertible evidence that national security is a relevant factor to be considered, the Attorney General, as the responsible officer of the State, was simply discharging this sacrosanct duty.
For this, he was met with abuse. The editorial ends with the quote “The AG is not the legal guardian of the minds of the Guyanese people.” Maybe not. However, “… the Attorney General of Guyana performs a constitutional role as legal advisor of the State and guardian of the public interest. The public interest may include several different facets …” [per President Adrian Saunders, Attorney General of Guyana v Environmental Protection Agency, Frederick Collins, Godfrey Whyte & Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd. [2024] CCJ 16 (AJ) GY.]
Guyana’s Arbitration Act prohibits the registration of a foreign award if it is contrary to the “public policy” of Guyana. What is the difference between the public interest and the public policy of Guyana? Are they not synonymous? Is it not the public interest that will determine the public policy? I leave it to the common sense of your readers.
I hope this missive will assist in setting the public record straight.

Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, MP
Attorney General & Minister of Legal Affairs