Nigel Hughes given rope to skip

DEAREDITOR,

Prerogative To Question

are aware of the full details of what will be the largest ever infrastructure project ever undertaken in Guyana. Surelythat’sanunacceptable state for any country – and worse for one of the fastest growing economies where theOneGuyanapropaganda creates the impression that the citizens are included in theplansfortheirfuture.

A Motion has been submitted to the Parliament callingforthefullreleaseof alldocumentsrelatingtothis project,butithasnotgained the approval of the Speaker Further, based on the Speaker’s track record of previous rulings, I am not optimistic that any Motion on these concerns will ever bedebatedinParliament.

As stewards of their future, Guyanese deserve to know the details and be given the opportunity to contribute to ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of this project, lest we find our taxes and other state revenue supporting another unprofitable pet project like the Skeldon sugar plant, using billions of dollars in bailout after bailout, seventeenyearslaterandstill counting.

Regards,

DavidPattersonM.P Executive – Alliance ForChange

I read the short article written by Kit Nascimento where he asked the question “Isthisfairandjust.”hewas making reference to Nigel Hughes being granted the opportunity of crossexamining selected membersoftheCOIwithout the Commission having the opportunityofdoingsameof oneofhis,RoxanneMyers.” At first, I was of that very same opinion as to why did The Commission grant Counsel Nigel Hughes such privileges without any form of reciprocity on their part? But,aftercarefulanalysisof their decision, I came into full agreement with the Commissiontohavegranted himthatlatitude.

Of course, it seems to be an unfair advantage seeing Hughes have shielded his client but yet wants to question another, one might be tempted to ask why hide yours,whileyouwanttogrill mine?

Butitisastrategywidely used in psychology and practiced in law, that is, just keepaclienttalkingandyou will get to know what are theirthoughts.

In other words, let that person “believe” that they are in control, something Nigel Hughes love to revel in He would have mistakenly taken the which makes him feel good about himself that he can question the witness and in some way cause him to lessenhimself.

But this is the problem withHughes,oneverycross examinationofthewitnesses this man comes over as a public sham. Nigel Hughes couldnotbemoreofftrackin thathecannotforoneinstant stick to the terms of reference (TOR), members of the Commission have to repeatedly caution him to stick to the mandate before him and not stray into tributaries.PoorNigel,what are sorry place to find h i m s e l f ! T h e Commissioners on this COI are smart and erudite people whom I think might be laughingthemselvestosleep at the antics of this man, he just stands there flatfooted and listless with those nonsensical questions! I guess he might have hoped that these hearings were private sessions and not public ones, because to publicly embarrass oneself likethatisquiteaspectacle!I hope Nigel does not crack andblurtoutashedidinthe COI in the Wismar Bridge shootings, when he shouted out ‘You want to shoot me likeyoudidthethreeboysat thebridge.’Ihopehedoesn’t because that would be the last of his presence there at theCOI.

It is interesting to note how some people turn up to be lawyers or persons who can be interpreters of law in thiscountry?

In Nigel Hughes case, this is a very bleak example of such. So, let him talk his talk, ask his questions until the time runs out on him, Otherwise, we rise up each day to listen to a clean, educational and informative COI.

Respectfullysubmitted, NeilAdams