Empty diatribes cannot lecture the law

Dear Editor,
Before shredding Kendesi Mohammed’s recent screed addressed to Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, MP, one must pose a fundamental question: What imbues an individual utterly devoid of rudimentary legal literacy – and manifestly incapable of tracking elementary current affairs – with the audacity to lecture Guyana’s chief legal officer? Furthermore, it is intellectual malpractice to conflate an elite, battle-tested jurist of Mr Nandlall’s stature with pedestrian political commentators. As a three-term Attorney General, Senior Counsel, and member of Guyana’s legal team before the International Court of Justice, Mr Nandlall operates at the zenith of regional jurisprudence. Before the Caribbean Court of Justice – our apex tribunal – he has litigated landmark constitutional matters for over two decades, garnering explicit judicial commendation for his persuasive and exemplary advocacy.
Mr Mohammed’s diatribe collapses not merely from factual bankruptcy but from glaring compositional ineptitude. His prose is bloated, tautological, and structurally incoherent. In paragraph four, he accurately defines the Attorney General’s primary mandate as representing the state in litigation; yet by paragraph eleven, he executes a blatant self-contradiction by castigating Mr Nandlall for defending the Government’s position. Worse, he pads his word count with vacuous, circular platitudes – asserting that petroleum contracts can be altered “depending on their terms, the applicable law, and the circumstances” – a hollow truism devoid of analytical value.
Now to Kendesi Mohammed’s legal farce, and we see that when subjected to scrutiny, his substantive assertions disintegrate entirely. First, in paragraph one, he accuses the Attorney General of squandering public funds by prosecuting the extradition proceedings against Azruddin Mohamed rather than leaving the matter to American attorneys. This exposes an abysmal ignorance of sovereign jurisdiction. Foreign prosecutors possess zero locus standi to appear before Guyanese courts. Under binding bilateral treaties and Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act, our state is legally obligated to adjudicate extradition requests domestically. Moreover, because Mr Mohamed initiated constitutional litigation against the State of Guyana, Article 112 of the Constitution compels the Attorney General to defend the nation.
Second, across paragraphs three, eight, and nine, Mr Mohammed ‘lacerates his fists’ in attempting to excoriate the Attorney General for opposing domestic challenges to the 2016 Stabroek Block Production Sharing Agreement and demands stricter terms prior to executing future agreements. He conveniently ignores Article 32 – the contract’s ironclad stability clause – which prohibits unilateral alteration and would expose Guyana to catastrophic, multi-billion-dollar international arbitration awards if breached. More egregiously, he appears “blissfully and honeymoonishly ignorant” that the Administration already enacted the Petroleum Activities Act 2023 alongside a revamped Model Production Sharing Agreement, imposing higher royalties, corporate taxes, and stringent ring-fencing on all subsequent oil blocks. (Come on! Daaaw!)
Finally, in paragraphs five through seven, Mr Mohammed demands to know where progress lies regarding constitutional and legislative modernisation. Had he bothered to read a newspaper, he would know that Mr Nandlall piloted the Constitution Reform Commission Act, and the twenty-member Constitutional Reform Commission is actively executing its mandate, soliciting public submissions ahead of its December 31, 2026, deadline. Concurrently, Mr Nandlall has spearheaded sweeping statutory modernisation, including the Data Protection Act, the Arbitration Act, and the Bail Act.
Constructive civic critique requires basic intellectual diligence. Rather than embarrassing himself with ill-informed tirades, Mr Mohammed would profit immensely from requesting a brief, hortatory meeting with the Attorney General. Such an audience might finally cure his legal illiteracy and elevate his public commentary above mere noise.

Yours truly,
Henry Singh