Dear Editor,
I refer to the Attorney General’s letter to you captioned ‘Allegation against President is a fabrication’ (December 9).
It would appear that the Attorney General has some peculiar concern about and insight into my aspirations.
In his letter of June 10, 2009, a copy of which is enclosed for your benefit, the Attorney General, acting on behalf of Minister Robert Persaud, attributed to me aspirations for future elevation.
He said “A dedicated discussion with some of your seniors on the necessity to meet basal requirements of conduct becoming an Attorney-at-Law ought to stand him/her in good stead for future elevation, if any.”
In the same letter the Attorney General sought to attack my parents and foreparents when he stated, “First, it is a matter of concern that the disdain for the office of Minister makes manifest the lack of breeding and decorum.”
Permit me to assure the Attorney General that there is no ‘rank’ elevated or otherwise, which he holds, has held or may seek to return to, that I have any aspiration to be ‘elevated’ to.
It is well known in legal circles that the ‘rank’ to which I assume reference has been made by the Attorney General, is often awarded to the politically appropriate. I am neither.
It would be a dishonour to my parents and foreparents however ‘bred’ if I were to aspire or worse accept any elevation in the present dispensation.
The last colony used for breeding anyone for special purposes was the slave colony of Barbuda over two hundred years ago.
I have noted the Attorney General’s desire to inform the public about “allegations” made against the President, his savage attack on the presiding Magistrate and his directions to the Magistrate on the contents of her future ruling.
Perhaps the Attorney General should have been equally keen to inform the public about the chronology of events which occurred before the Magistrate.
The State-appointed Special Prosecu-tor, Mr Sanjeev Datadin, had some months ago, after the Chief Magistrate had transferred the case against Mr Sharma to Court 10, invited the learned Magistrate to recuse herself as I had appeared on her behalf in separate proceedings.
I urged the Magistrate to transfer the matter to the Chief Magistrate for reassignment.
Shortly thereafter while the matter was reserved for ruling, the Special Pro-secutor wrote to the Learned Magistrate, recalling his submission and assuring her that he would not again raise the issue of potential or actual bias in the extant case or on appeal. The Special Prosecutor urged the learned Magistrate to proceed with the hearing.
The “options” made available to the Magistrate were outlined by the State’s Special Prosecutor.
The statements made by the President at a press conference are now the subject of litigation and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them or express an opinion.
It is a most unfortunate day in the administration of justice when the Attorney General savagely attacks the reputation of a sitting Magistrate with full knowledge of the fact that the Magistrate cannot properly engage the press to defend her/himself.
I wish to express my gratitude to the Attorney General for reminding me that in our profession we must act without fear or favour.
Yours faithfully,
CA Nigel Hughes
Attorney at law
