THE NIGEL HUGHES FIASCO Since 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 to the 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 the company 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

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, and he 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.

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 the underprivileged 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.

Ronald J. Daniels 31st August, 2013 5:48 PM