the hughes' fiasco
Post on 14-Apr-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 The Hughes' Fiasco
1/4
THE NIGEL HUGHES FIASCOSince the publication on August 6, 2013 in Kaieteur News that Nigel Hughes is
Company Secretary for Amaila Falls Hydro Inc. overmuch has been said and written
about this matter. Chief among the commentators is Harry Gill, who, from all
indications, has crafted a personal fixation with Hughes. Mr. Gill seems to spare no
opportunity to attack Hughes and has rationalised that his bases are concrete. For
present purposes, I shall resist my inclination to treat with his myriad illogical
assertions and conclusions lest I crystalise what is quickly evolving into his morbid
obsession.
Prior to Kaieteurs publication, I commanded only my ignorance of this reality. I can
understand why many of Hughes supporters felt betrayed and hurt by this fact and
especially by the circumstances surrounding its revelation. The widespread emotions
this fiasco excited have created a collage of Hughes which stands in contradistinction tothe notable and honourable politician his brief political career has impressed upon us.
This is due in no small part to the sentiments hastily thrown around by those who have
subtracted from their views rational analyses of this apparent conflict of interest.
Hughes became Company Secretary for Amaila Falls Hydro Inc. in 2009 and assumed
the Chairmanship of the AFC in 2012. Hughes Law Firm was selected by a process of
elimination after Amaila Inc. explored other firms- resolving that his expertise best
suited their representation. He had been retained by Amaila Inc. some three years prior
to his formal political involvement. It is Hughes position that his relationship with thecompany was immediately revealed upon his assumption of office. He further stated
that there was no secrecy in his being Company Secretary and that this was public
knowledge. One critic opined that public knowledge is not the same as public
awareness. While this may be true, one should be mindful of what may be a parallel
truism, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The laws are public knowledge but many
people have been jailed for their ignorance. How can we reconcile the two? I am not
trying to be the Devils Advocate or to trivialize this most serious matter ; I am just
drawing a fitting analogy.
Ramjattans response that he was aware of the association between Hughes and
Amaila Inc. and not his position as Company Secretary has only served to compound
this fiasco. If anyone should be blamed for the handling of this matter and the lack of a
proactive approach in bringing this information to the fore ahead of when it was
revealed in those volatile circumstances, it is the entire Executive of the AFC- not
Hughes exclusively. A prudent act of the AFC would have been to reveal this to the
-
7/29/2019 The Hughes' Fiasco
2/4
general public that it might insulate itself and not arouse suspicions of its alignment
with the government on the Amaila Falls Hydro Project.
I am surprised by the silence of the legal fraternity as one of its own is placed before the
firing squad of poorly informed public sentiments. There is no expectation of support
beyond addressing the purely legal issues. It is trite law that an attorney must not
compromise his clients confidence as it is most fundamental to the attorney -client
relationship. Any revelation of what constitutes the substantive relationship between
Hughes and Amaila Inc. is in the exclusive jurisdiction of Amaila Inc. to reveal. Any
attorney who vests in himself this liberty orchestrates his professional annihilation.
I met Hughes in 2010. Before I met the man I met the legend of Nigel Hughes, the
miracle working attorney. I can say firmly that his reputation as a remarkable attorney
is not misplaced. His legal acumen is unmatched locally. I have seen him on the
opposite side of some of our best and brightest attorneys, senior counsels included, andhe has proven why he is the best. He commands the respect and admiration of judges,
magistrates, lawyers and clerks alike. Hughes is the lawyers lawyer and has
represented many prominent figures in the legal fraternity, the political arena and in the
wider civil society. He is also the ultimate poor peoples lawyer. One judge has
remarked to me that Hughes pro bono work is admirable. I have seen Hughes
represent clients with a passion exhibited by few attorneys and one would never believe
that very many of these passionate representations are free of charge. It is ludicrous to
suggest that Hughes would have to employ extra-legal measures to prevail in favour of
those he represents. His legal adroitness is sufficient.
It has been said that Hughes represents the scum of the earth and that he should not
represent these people- alleged drug dealers, alleged murderers, alleged rapists, etc.
Any lawyer would tell you that his business is not to pronounce upon the innocence or
guilt of his client, but merely to put his clients case fairly before the tribunal in
question. It is the tribunal which makes that determination. To suggest a brutal
restriction on the category of clients an attorney should represent is tantamount to
inviting his departure from the profession.
When I met Hughes, I promptly indicated to him that he will get involved in politics in
the near future. He dismissed my saying and said that its at best a remote possibility
and one that was unlikely to materialize until after his retirement from law. I
maintained my position as I foresaw his political involvement as clear as day. Hughes
was plunged into politics consequent upon his involvement in seeking to abate the
plight of those who suffer the rigours of our political reality- economic and otherwise.
-
7/29/2019 The Hughes' Fiasco
3/4
This gained momentum after the Linden Massacre which saw him assume a pivotal role
in securing, at his expense, the services of a ballistic expert and an independent
overseas pathologist. He served on the Commission of Inquiry at no cost to his clients.
Also he made other financial contributions to the Lindeners during the course of their
protest. The extent of Hughes involvement in the social wellbeing of theunderprivileged in our country is not replicated on par by any other attorney to my
knowledge. This practice of his preceded Amaila Inc.
I think also that the public has, with the assistance of Hughes most vocal critics,
misapprehended the basis of his retirement. It was seen and marketed as a choice
between maintaining office as Chairman or Company Secretary; and that he chose the
latter given the lucrative benefits. I am afraid that the matter is not this superficial.
Resignation as Company Secretary would have no retroactive effects. I applaud the
move to resign as Chairman though I do not support it entirely. Any politician of merit
would retire if public sentiments are feelings of betrayal; as ones grip on political
power should never be so tight that he is convicted it is his entitlement. Hughes felt his
retirement warranted so that the stigma attached to him does not infect the wider AFC.
Whether his objective was realized is another matter.
If we were to be as vocal about the excesses of several prominent political figures who
persist with impunity and stand erect in arrogance, our Guyana would be a better
country. If other political figures should follow suit and retire when charges of
impropriety are leveled against them we might see the dawn of a new political culture.
I am no supporter of the AFC or any of the political parties for that matter. I remain
resolute that the Amaila Falls Hydro Project in its present package is untenable and
ought not to be pursued unless it is drastically restructured. I am yet to comprehend
AFCs volte face on this project.
I shall not endeavor to conceal my admiration and respect for Hughes; and I am
mindful that there would be those who receive my views as those of a Hughes
sympathizer. I admire Hughes more as a lawyer than I do as a politician. I have had
occasion to express my disagreement with Hughes on matters political and legal. I too
was disappointed by the manner in which the apparent conflict of interest was brought
to the publics awareness. What matters most in instances of presumed bias is the
appearance of bias as against its actuality. It is the same as saying that perception is
often stronger than reality. However, issues this sensitive should not be inflated purely
by emotions and falsehoods. The substantive matters should be dealt with if we are
truly committed to informing the public.
-
7/29/2019 The Hughes' Fiasco
4/4
Ronald J. Daniels
31st August, 2013
5:48 PM
top related