Using the legal system as a weapon against political opponents

Dear Editor,
The legal system in any society is that institution which prevents that society from descending into anarchy by ensuring that the rule of law of upheld. The Constitution and the law protect the legal system from political interference so that ultimately the rule of law will not be destroyed by politics. Guyana is no different from other societies. However, since this Government has taken Office, in the same way the PNC did when it was in Government before, it is using the legal system as a weapon against its political opponents.
The constitutionally independent Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) Office has been neutralised, as the holder of that Office, herself, has been a victim of political persecution (Pradoville 2). So that important mechanism to prevent malicious prosecutions of fabricated charges has become non-functional. As a result, criminal charges are simply made up without any evidence to support them and instituted against former Ministers and Officials of the PPP Administration.
Former Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, was charged with Larceny by a Bailee, in his capacity as Attorney General, of certain law books. Nandlall said that he was subscribing to these books 10 years or more before he was appointed. He says that he requested the Government to continue to pay his subscription for these books as a term of contract of service, when he negotiated those terms with President Donald Ramotar. Ramotar has confirmed this in writing.
Attorney General, Basil Williams, first commissioned a special audit by the Auditor General in relation to these books, specifically. In his report, the Auditor General made no finding of any wrongdoing. When the matter first arose, Nandlall made a public offer to buy the books and hand them over to the AG Office. This was refused, and he was charged. There is nowhere else in the world that a person would be charged in these circumstances.
Dr Ashni Singh and Irfaan Ali, two other Ministers were also charged. The gravamen of the offense for which they were charged was selling State properties without first obtaining a Certificate of Valuation. This is another made up offence. There is no such offense in the laws of Guyana. These two former Ministers were executing a decision of the Cabinet. This decision was part of the Executive’s land distribution policy. Under the Constitution, the President, assisted by his Cabinet, has the freedom to chart executive policies of the Government for the day. If these policies are wrong, they may attract political sanctions from the electorate at the elections. They cannot amount to violation of the criminal law. Neither can the criminal law be stretched to unlawful limits in order to create offenses to meet the political agenda of vengeful politicians.
Unless this political vendetta and legal madness is stopped in its tracks by the Judiciary, then when the Government changes, like-minded politicians would demand reciprocity. They would call for their own pound of flesh. So, every political policy and decision that is perceived to be wrong by the next Government would be converted into a criminal charge. Every personal benefit enjoyed by a Minister, whether as part of his contract of service or not, would become the subject of criminal proceedings. For example:
1. Ministers who are now living in rental premises, where the Government is paying millions of dollars of rent, annually, would be charged;
2. the Prime Minister would be charged for spending millions of dollars in framing his personal photographs and millions of dollars in other endeavours, when he has no tangible portfolio of Government;
3. each Minister would be charged for the monies paid by the Government towards a medical insurance policy;
4. a Minister would be charged for purchasing $1M in mints (sweetie);
5. dozens of criminal charges would flow against Ministers who violate the Procurement Act;
6. dozens of criminal charges would flow in relation to D’Urban Park, the “drugs bond” and hundreds of other similar transactions.
Obviously, the above is not exhaustive. It is only to make a point. This would lead to a total destruction of the society. The criminal process would become an instrument for oppression and revenge, not for justice and fairness. Those who like to speak about a failed State would then understand what a failed State is.
It is only the Judiciary, as an institution, that can stop this descent. These matters are before the Judiciary. Let us hope that they can save this country.

Sincerely,
Jai Seetaram