by Randy Gopaul
The recent revelation that Guyana’s Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, SC, has initiated legal proceedings against U.S. permanent resident (or US citizen) Melissa Ann Atwell, known as “Melly Mel,” over alleged libel raises profound concerns about abuse of power, the erosion of judicial independence, and the misuse of legal mechanisms to silence dissent. This case is emblematic of broader issues within Guyana’s legal system, where corruption and political interference remain entrenched, particularly under the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
Guyana’s judicial system has long been criticized for its lack of independence. The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), often perceived as a puppet of the PPP government, routinely fails to inspire public confidence. Allegations of selective prosecutions and the weaponization of the courts against political opponents and critics have dogged the administration for years. Against this backdrop, the Attorney General’s decision to pursue a social media activist, whose primary “offense” appears to be exposing corruption, reeks of an abuse of power.
The question is not merely whether Mr. Nandlall feels aggrieved, but whether a legal system so deeply compromised has the moral authority to reach across international borders to pursue a critic. The answer, resoundingly, is no.
From a legal perspective, the Attorney General’s actions face an uphill battle in the United States. Under the SPEECH Act—a robust federal statute designed to protect U.S. residents from foreign defamation judgments inconsistent with First Amendment principles—any judgment against Atwell in Guyana would almost certainly be unenforceable in the United States.
The U.S. courts have a strong tradition of protecting free speech, particularly when it concerns public figures. For Mr. Nandlall to succeed, he would need to prove not only that the statements were false but that they were made with “actual malice” (i.e., knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). This is an exceedingly high bar, designed to ensure that public officials cannot use libel laws to suppress legitimate criticism.
Moreover, U.S. courts are unlikely to recognize or enforce judgments from a foreign jurisdiction where corruption or political interference undermines judicial integrity. In Guyana, many high ranking members of the PPP government have been identified by US State entities as being involved with acts of corruption, discrimination, and abuse of power over the years. This principle will most surely be upheld in any case involving Atwell, where (Guyana’s AG) foreign litigant seeks to enforce judgments tainted by systemic bias or procedural unfairness. The Attorney General’s case is likely to be seen for what it is, an attempt to leverage a flawed legal system to intimidate a critic into silence.
Nandlall’s actions is most surely a legal overreach; but it is also an affront to democratic principles. The use of public office to pursue personal grievances reflects an alarming conflation of state power with personal vendettas. This is not the behavior of an Attorney General committed to justice; it is the behavior of an authoritarian figure seeking to punish dissent.
That this case arises from criticism on social media underscores the fragile ego of those in power. Social media has democratized public discourse, allowing ordinary citizens to hold powerful figures accountable. For an Attorney General to deploy state resources in response to criticism is an abuse of power that should alarm anyone who values free speech and government accountability.
This case sets a dangerous precedent. If corrupt governments are allowed to exploit international legal systems to target critics abroad, it could embolden other authoritarian regimes to do the same. It sends a chilling message to whistleblowers and activists: no matter where you are, we can reach you.
The international community, particularly the U.S., must condemn this blatant overreach. Organizations advocating for press freedom and human rights should amplify Atwell’s case, shining a spotlight on Guyana’s corrupt judicial practices and the PPP’s authoritarian tendencies. This case should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a broader pattern of political intimidation and judicial abuse.
