Response to AG Anil Nandlall’s claim of “constitutional atrocity”

Dear Editor, 

Please permit me space in your newspaper to further respond to the claim by Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall SC MP of “constitutional atrocity” by the APNU+AFC government in appointing Deputy Commissioner Nigel Hoppie as acting Commissioner of Police without complying with the procedure laid down in the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. I wish to reiterate that I hold no brief for the APNU.

In my previous missive I pointed out that Deputy Commissioner of Police Nigel Hoppie was never appointed to act as Commissioner of Police. I carefully outlined what transpired when Commissioner of Police Leslie James proceeded on pre-retirement leave on July 31, 2020. I maintain that position. 

Editor, it is not my intention to get into a tit for tat with the Attorney General over this issue. However, in his response which was published on September 13, 2023, he asserted that “false narratives on matters of public importance must never be left on the public record unrepudiated”. I totally agree with that statement by the Attorney General. it is for that reason I feel compelled to make this further response. 

The Attorney General should be familiar with the legal maxim “onus probandi actori incimbit”, which translates to “he who asserts must prove”.

Since it is the Attorney General who is accusing the APNU+AFC government of committing “constitutional atrocity” by appointing Deputy Commissioner of Police Nigel Hoppie to act as Commissioner of Police without complying with the relevant constitutional provisions, the burden of proof lies with him. The Attorney General ought to know that in matters of this nature evidence is everything. Statements such as those he made on this issue are meaningless without evidence.

Perhaps he can start with providing the following to support his claim:

1. The letter appointing Deputy Commissioner Nigel Hoppie to act as Commissioner of Police.
2. Hoppie’s Instrument of appointment.
3. The Government Order in which that appointment was made.
4. The Official Gazette with the publication of that appointment.
5. A pay slip from Hoppie, or any other document showing that he was paid an acting allowance.

The Attorney General should put up or shut up. 

I would like to repeat the following for emphasis: Deputy Commissioner Nigel Hoppie performed the duties of Commissioner of Police for two and a half days under the APNU+AFC government (July 31, August 1, and half day Sunday August 2, 2020. President Irfaan Ali was sworn in on the afternoon of August 2, 2020). Thereafter, he continued to perform those duties for almost 17 months under the PPP/C administration, (from Sunday, August 2, 2020, to Sunday March 27, 2022, when he proceeded on pre-retirement leave).

For about nine months during that period (September 2020 to June 16, 2021, when the President unlawfully suspended the Police Service Commission, the required constitutional bodies were in place (the Leader of the Opposition and the Police Service Commission) and President Ali could have initiated the process to appoint Hoppie, or anyone else, as acting, or substantive Commissioner of Police. Why was that not done? It would appear that the “constitutional atrocity” the Attorney General speaks of was committed by the PPP/C Government when it allowed Deputy Commissioner Nigel Hoppie to perform the duties of Commissioner of Police for an extended period of time without seeking to appoint him, or someone else, either as acting or substantive Commissioner of Police. 

The Attorney General accused me of “dedicating quite a few paragraphs to ranting and wailing against His Excellency’s appointment of Mr. Clifton Hicken’s (sic) to act in the office of Commissioner of Police”. Editor, Mr. Clifton Hicken is mentioned twice in my letter: I stated that “it is apposite to note that Assistant Commissioner Clifton Hicken who was a controversial appointment to act as Commissioner of Police has been wearing the badge of rank of Commissioner of Police since his appointment. The only other time Mr. Clifton Hicken was mentioned in my letter was when I stated, “In the challenge to the appointment of Assistant Commissioner Clifton Hicken to act as Commissioner of Police it was submitted that Article 211 of the Constitution was not complied with (there was no consultation with the Leader of the Opposition”).

Those are the two references to Mr. Clifton Hicken that the Attorney General describes as ranting and wailing against His Excellency’s appointment of Mr. Clifton Hicken to act as Commissioner of Police. 

Unsurprisingly, the Attorney General failed to respond to other issues raised in my letter, saying “the remainder of Mr. Slowe’s letter does not merit any commentary”. I submit that the Attorney General cannot provide any plausible answer to the remainder of the issues raised in my letter, so he decided to dodge the issues by not responding. 

Yours sincerely.

Paul Slowe CCH, DSM, Assistant Commissioner of Police (R’etd). Former Chairman of the Police Service Commission.