Opposition says DPP acted “vacuously”, vows to move to the High Court soon

DPP’s dismissal of charges

– Nandlall receives acknowledgement on request for review

In establishing that the powers exercised by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack are reviewable, the Opposition’s legal representative and former Attorney General Anil Nandlall has said he will be moving to the High Court shortly to challenge the DPP’s decision to drop five private criminal charges made against five Government Ministers over various acts of alleged corruption.
Nandlall said, “Having terminated the first two (charges), I am not surprised that these others have been terminated. It is quite unfortunate that the DPP is exercising her powers in the manner in which she has done… I will have to go to the High Court to challenge the termination of these challenges.”
The former AG maintained that the DPP acted vacuously. “On what basis has she terminated the charges? The reasons advanced are foolish. And good governance is not part of the responsibility of the DPP and the fact that the charges have not been reported to the Police is not a basis.”
According to him, the DPP had nothing to review and it now brings to bear that the DPP acted without evidence. He maintained that when one exercises discretion, they must have materials before them.
“And there is nothing before her. If she had requested of me what evidence I have to support these charges, and I was not able to produce the evidence, or I provided evidence that is not acceptable or not sufficient, then in that case one could have concluded that she did not conclude her discretion vacuously.” However, he said that the decision could only be best described as “frivolous and vexatious.”
Asked whether he has had any updates on his formal request to have the DPP review the charges made against former Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh and former Special Purpose Unit (SPU) Head Winston Brassignton, Nandlall told Guyana Times that the only response he has received is a letter of receipt thanking him and expressing that the content of the letter is duly noted.
“That is the scant regard that the DPP holds for the citizenry of the country. Most importantly it smacks of bias, it shows deep prejudice and it’s an act of unequal treatment before the law. One cannot also discount that every time the AG speaks and expresses an expectation that the DPP will act, the DPP acts. So in my view and in the view of the average Guyanese, the DPP has lost credibility in their eyes and that office cannot be considered independent,” the Attorney concluded.
While the DPP is yet to respond to the criticisms made by the Opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP), which claimed that her office may be compromised, the Government came to her defence and said in a statement on Thursday that the DPP is independent, no one can instruct her. Minister of State Joseph Harmon has also rejected allegations that the Ministry of the Presidency issued instructions.
“That is a malicious report, nobody can instruct the DPP. The DPP is an independent office and the DPP exercises her responsibilities without interference from anyone. I can say categorically, that nobody, no senior personnel from the Ministry of the Presidency instructed the DPP, so that is a malicious report,” the Minister said.
Charges were first filed against Dr Singh and Brassington on April 12, 2018. The duo was charged with three counts of misconduct in public office contrary to common law in Georgetown. The matter was called up before the court on the said day and adjourned until May 7.
Days after, the Opposition filed criminal charges against former Health Minister, Dr George Norton and current Health Minister Volda Lawrence. They were charged with regard to the sole sourcing of drugs for the Georgetown Public Hospital from ANSA McAL Trading Limited. The other issue pertains to the rental of a house in Sussex Street, Albouystown, Georgetown to be utilised as a drug bond at a cost of $12 million monthly.
The private criminal charges were also filed against Finance Minister Winston Jordan; Public Infrastructure Minister David Patterson; and Public Service Minister, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine. The charges against the Ministers alleged a breach of the Procurement Act in relation to the expenditure of $906 million for the construction of the controversial D’Urban Park Project.