Legal proceedings filed on behalf of Duncan; contends that the Tribunal was “unlawfully” appointed

Attorneys representing Carvil Duncan have filed legal proceedings seeking redress and the prohibition of the work of the Tribunal, which was “unlawfully” appointed to investigate his removal from office.

Duncan is contending that the advice tendered by Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo to the President for his removal under Article 225 (4) of the Constitution was done in violation of natural justice, since he was not afforded a fair and adequate opportunity to be heard prior to that advice being tendered.

Following the advice of the Prime Minister, a tribunal was established by President David Granger to investigate whether Duncan should be removed from office due to inability to perform his duties.

Members of the tribunal were written by attorneys representing Duncan, including former Attorney General under the PPP Government, Anil Nandlall, advising that the appointment of the Tribunal is an “interference with the administration of criminal justice and that the Tribunal will assume illegal purposes in the event it furthers the terms of reference.”

Duncan’s attorneys say he is entitled to the presumption of innocence guaranteed to him by Article 144 of the Constitution of Guyana and is to be treated as a person wholly innocent of the charges referred to.

“No enquiry can be conducted by the Tribunal into the allegations that are the subject of the criminal proceedings. In the premises our client is advised that your appointment is unlawful and that the Tribunal has been established for illegal purposes to his prejudice and in subversion of the rule of law.”

This is in reference to ongoing criminal proceedings against Duncan, who has been charged with the offences of larceny and conspiracy to commit a felony.

The criminal proceedings which are being heard in the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court are still pending. To this, Duncan maintains that there has been no determination of guilt against him.

It is further being contended that Duncan did not receive any communication from the Prime Minister, as is being purported, hence he was not afforded an opportunity to be heard prior to the decision taken by the Prime Minister advising the President that his removal from office should be investigated.