Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall is facing renewed scrutiny over his public commentary on pending criminal proceedings after remarks he made about the three Transport and Harbours Department employees charged in connection with the MV Barima disaster, prompting fresh questions about judicial independence, the presumption of innocence and whether the accused can receive a fair trial free from perceived prejudice.
The controversy comes on the heels of a recent ruling by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in the extradition proceedings involving members of the Mohamed family, in which the region’s highest court delivered a stinging rebuke of the Attorney General’s conduct.
In its judgment, the CCJ found that the Attorney General had demonstrated “bias” and warned that his public comments concerning ongoing judicial proceedings “can undermine the independence of the judiciary and have deleterious effect on the administration of justice and the rule of law in Guyana.” The Court added that such conduct “is to be denounced.”
The ruling marked the third occasion on which the CCJ has expressed concern over Nandlall’s conduct in matters affecting the administration of justice and due process, renewing debate over the limits that should govern public statements by the country’s chief legal adviser while court proceedings are active.
Those concerns have now resurfaced in the criminal prosecution arising from the July 18 sinking of the MV Barima, one of Guyana’s deadliest maritime disasters.
The Transport and Harbours Department vessel departed Georgetown for Port Kaituma before capsizing off Guyana’s northwestern coast. Government officials initially reported that there were 116 passengers and 17 crew members aboard, for a total of 133 persons. However, as recovery and verification efforts continued, that figure steadily increased. Authorities have since acknowledged that as many as 179 persons may have been aboard the vessel, but no definitive passenger manifest has ever been produced. To date, the true number of passengers remains unknown.
The disaster claimed 73 lives, while the Government has verified 76 survivors, leaving unanswered questions about the total number of people who were actually on board and exposing apparent failures in passenger accounting.
Charged with murder are Captain Kevin Price, the master of the MV Barima with overall responsibility for the vessel; Rondell Dwayne Roberts, the vessel’s Chief Mate, responsible for assisting with navigation, safety and deck operations; and Delon Granderson, the Transport and Harbours Department’s Cargo Superintendent at the Kingston Goods Wharf, who was responsible for overseeing cargo loading and passenger boarding before the vessel departed. The three men are scheduled to return to court on August 3.
Addressing widespread public concern over the decision to lay murder charges, Nandlall used his weekly Issues in the News programme to dismiss opposing views.
“On what planet do these people live? Such a position defies common sense and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.”
During the programme, the Attorney General also asserted that the accused men had been “drunk” while carrying out their duties. Earlier statements issued by the State alleged that the men had tested positive for cannabis. Those allegations form part of the prosecution’s case, have not been proven, and remain to be tested in court.
His comments have reignited concerns because they were made while the matter is actively before the courts and days before the accused are due to return before a magistrate.
Under longstanding common law principles, which form the bedrock of Guyana’s legal system, every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an independent and impartial court. The burden rests entirely on the prosecution, and no accused person is required to prove his innocence.
The common law also embraces the sub judice principle, which discourages public statements capable of prejudicing active court proceedings. The rationale is straightforward: justice must be administered inside the courtroom on evidence subjected to cross-examination—not through commentary by politicians, prosecutors or other influential public officials.
The Attorney General occupies a unique constitutional office. As the Government’s principal legal adviser and the country’s most senior legal officer, his public pronouncements carry considerable weight. When he publicly advances factual assertions about persons awaiting trial—particularly allegations central to the prosecution’s case—it raises legitimate questions about whether the accused can reasonably expect their guilt or innocence to be determined solely on the evidence presented before the court.
Those are precisely the concerns the CCJ highlighted in its recent judgment. By warning that comments from the Attorney General on pending judicial proceedings can undermine judicial independence and have a “deleterious effect” on the administration of justice and the rule of law, the Court underscored the heightened duty of restraint expected from holders of that office.
The murder prosecution has unfolded amid broader public scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the tragedy, including allegations that the MV Barima was unseaworthy, concerns over its maintenance history, regulatory oversight and whether responsibility extends beyond the three employees now before the courts. Those issues are expected to be examined by the five-member Commission of Inquiry established by President Irfaan Ali.
Whether the prosecution ultimately proves that Captain Price, Chief Mate Roberts and Cargo Superintendent Granderson committed murder is a question for the courts alone. Until a judge or jury determines otherwise on the evidence, each remains entitled to the full protection of the presumption of innocence—a fundamental principle of the common law that the CCJ has repeatedly emphasized must not be undermined by prejudicial public commentary from the nation’s chief legal adviser.
In a justice system founded on the rule of law, the integrity of criminal proceedings depends not only on impartial judges, but also on restraint from those who wield the power of the State. The CCJ’s repeated admonitions suggest that this responsibility applies with particular force to the Attorney General himself.
