On Tuesday April 21, 2026 the Caribbean Court of Justice’s spent and unduly protracted period in detaining the Honourable Attorney General with, arguably, unnecessary questions regarding statements he (and others in the political realm) made in the public domain about the extradition proceedings. This quickly became the main topic of discussion within certain legal circles and some media platforms. The court shifted the focus of the hearing from the defendants, the Mohameds, to the Attorney General himself. In essence, the Attorney General was briefly on trial, for statements interpreted in abstract as a response to the ongoing public criticism by the defendants and statements of other third parties. It would have boded the court well to have situate those statements in their proper context.
With the greatest respect to the Court, their questioning did not take into account the totality of the actions of all parties. As a lawyer, myself within Ontario Canada, I am ethically bound to ensure at all times my actions do not negatively impact the perception and reputation of the system of justice. Lawyers in Guyana are held to a similar ethical standard under rule 2 of the lawyer code of conduct which states: “Attorneys must uphold the rule of law, while encouraging public respect for justice.”
The Ethical Rule the Court Overlooked
This principle is not unique to Guyana. Codes of professional conduct across the Commonwealth affirm that public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may be eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct, and accordingly, a lawyer’s conduct should reflect favourably on the legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and of the community.
However, the ethical obligation runs in both directions. A lawyer must not act in ways that erode public trust, but equally, a lawyer must act positively to preserve it. A lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system; because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation; support, and most of all the trust of the people.
Attorney General Nandlall, as Guyana’s Chief Legal Officer, carries that critical obligation in amplified form. He is not merely a private practitioner who may choose comfort of silence. He is Guyana’s Attorney and at all times must discharge his ethical duties in favour of and to protect the rule of law within the Co-Operative Republic of Guyana. Moreover, when the administration of justice is being publicly mis-characterised, his professional duty compels him to speak.
Context Matters – Public Statements
The Court’s concern about the Attorney General’s (and others in Government) “public statements” cannot be properly assessed without confronting the context in which those comments were made. It is important to note here, that the Attorney General (and other in Government) DID NOT initiate this public discourse from a position of privileged governmental knowledge. The very nature of the Mohameds Case, which is highly political charged matter, triggered reports by many
local and global media outlets, all of which are a matter of public record. The Attorney General made this known during Tuesday’s hearing. Additionally, it should be noted that the defendants have made statements critical of the system of justice and the Government of Guyana, implying that the process may not be fair, and proceedings are merely a pantomime as decisions were already predetermined. Perhaps more damaging, is the contention of the Mohameds that the extradition process is being driven by the Government of Guyana with a political motive – a complete falsehood!
The Nation’s Lawyer, has an ethical obligation as an attorney to uphold the rule of law and encourage public respect for the system of justice. The Attorney General’s statements are those of a lawyer being compelled to discharge his ethical obligation and only addresses statements made within the public. The court’s analysis fails to capture the other side of the obligation the AG comments should have been viewed in the context of a lawyer discharging his ethical obligation.
Silence
Moreover, the defendant – Azruddin Mohamed, noted that his social media following is equal to the population of Guyana. Given broad reach of the defendant, one cannot expect a lawyer, yet alone the Attorney General, to remain silent as trust in the justice system is being intentionally eroded. Such silence is problematic and the Attorney General, as the Nation’s Chief Legal Officer is compelled to discharge his ethical obligation.
Here, I would argue that given the very political nature of the case, coupled with the statements attempting to erode the public faith in our system, silence by the nation’s Chief legal officer in the face of swirling public misinformation, does not protect the justice system. It abandons
the field to those who would fill the vacuum with distortion, conspiracy, and political manipulation.
There is a key distinction that I think many will overlook, to the detriment of Guyana, which is the difference between the commentary that undermines justice, and commentary that defends it.
The Honorable Attorney General, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, did not breach the code of professional conduct. He honoured it by reassuring the public of the process and maintain trust in the system of Justice. The admonition does not address the ethical fact that a lawyer who speaks to protect the public’s trust in the justice system is doing exactly what the profession requires of him.