Bar Council repudiates statements by AG, other officials over local content bill consultations

The Bar Council of the Guyana Bar Association yesterday strongly repudiated statements by Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC and other government officials on the level of consultations that had been pursued with it on the Local Content Bill.

In a statement, the Bar also maintained that the Bill should have catered for legal services for local attorneys at 100% as opposed to the current 90%. Nandlall in his presentation in parliament on Wednesday on the bill had given the impression that Guyanese legal practitioners do not have the capacity to handle some matters which he described as “technical legal documents” and “joint venture agreements” and this had earned him a sharp rebuke on Thursday in a statement from the Bar Association.

Yesterday, the Bar Council issued a further response based on remarks that were made by Nandlall and two other officials: Bobby Gossai and Michael Munroe on the programme `Parliamentary Update’ on the evening of Wednesday, December 29th.

Noting that it is not its practice to issue a further statement having previously stated its position,  the Bar Council said that the statements by the trio “by necessity require a departure from the normal practice of the Bar, primarily due to their blatant and manifest retreat from factual occurrences”.

The Bar Council said that the trio had conflated and did not distinguish between consultation on the Local Content Policy and the Bill. A distinction which it said it made in its  statement on Thursday.

The Bar Council added that the trio “Erroneously gave the impression that there was adequate meaningful consultation with the Association and in so doing displayed a complete lack of understanding of the legal requirements of a consultative process notwithstanding extensive judicial pronouncement on this issue”.  It said that the trio used adjectives such as “elaborate interactions” and “quite a number of engagements” without revealing that there was only one meeting with the Association since the publication of the Bill and that publication was only some eight days prior to the passing of the bill.

Furthermore, the meeting was held at the request of the Bar Association and not on the invitation of the subject Ministry.

The meeting was held on the 28th December, 2021, the day before the Bill was expected to be debated and passed but a copy of the Bill was not sent to the Bar for consideration or comment prior to its publication as is the usual course with such legislation.

According to the Bar Council, the meeting held at the Pegasus Hotel on 13th December, 2021,  was in effect a presentation inclusive of other bodies and was convened with less than one  working day’s notice and without the benefit of the draft Bill, despite request. The Bar Council said that it was further erroneously stated that there was a meeting with the Association that lasted until 1 AM and where an Association representative was present.

“Most alarming however is that neither Mr. Gossai nor Mr. Munroe, thought it fit to disclose that they had promised the Bar Association and undertook to provide a considered written response to its comments and queries by 2:15 PM on the 28th December, 2021 at its meeting on the said day, notwithstanding their reference to the said meeting. A response, which they further did not  disclose, has not to date been provided. This dexterity with the truth speaks for itself. The process was not complete”, the Bar Council declared.

Further, the Bar Council said that there is very little, if any point in consultation if the representation is in effect ignored, particularly where the question of ability to carry out a function is the subject of opinion and derogatory remarks in relation to the skill involved.

“With regard to the latter, we note that the statements of the Hon. Attorney General in this regard appear to be based on personal opinion and not that of independent assessment. The repetition of, and not withdrawal or apology for the insulting, offensive and disrespectful remarks towards the competency of the Guyana Bar, while not surprising is nevertheless unfortunate”, the Bar Council said.

It maintained that there is no justification for legal services to be anything other than 100% (mandatory).

“The promise of continued engagement and review of the percentage target is of little comfort in the face of the breach of prior undertaking and display of mal fides. The Bar Association will accordingly continue to take all steps to ensure the protection of the Guyana Bar and upholding of the Rule of Law”, the statement asserted.