the hughes' fiasco

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


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.


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.


4/4

Ronald J. Daniels

31st August, 2013

5:48 PM

the hughes' fiasco

Documents