Open letter to the Attorney General

Honourable Attorney General,

“Rupture”

You recently expressed concerns regarding the practice of parastatal bodies and the Commissioner of Police of seeking legal advice from private practitioners, thus bypassing the Attorney General’s Office (AGO).

Many of us were appalled by the exorbitant fees charged by private practitioners.

However, we should not also overlook an issue within the AGO itself that also demands transparency and accountability. Allow us to pose you the following questions:

1. Remuneration of AGO Officers: If the AGO will exclusively serve as the legal adviser to parastatal bodies, will these AGO officers perceive separate remuneration for this work?
2. Disclosure of Additional Fees: Since approximately 2007, certain specific AGO officers receive retainers and case fees in their personal name. Will you disclose the identities of those officers who have benefitted from such arrangements and the sums they have obtained, just as was done for private practitioners? Transparency demands disclosure from 2014 onwards.

One Assistant Parliamentary Counsel, whose name was mentioned in a meeting of L’Alliance du Changement, has sat on multiple boards, including serving as Chairman of one of the bodies. Does this align with the duties of a Law Officer under the Law Officers Act?

1. Compliance with Tax Laws: Are these officers registered for a BRN and VAT, as private practitioners are required to do for similar work? If not, as our confrere in the private practice rightly ask, why is there such a discriminatory practice?
2. Appointments on Boards: Will you disclose who got postings on the boards of those parastatal bodies, and how much they perceived in terms of remuneration?
3. Selection Process: What criteria were used to select officers for such retainers and board memberships?
4. Inequality within AGO: Has this practice created unequal categories within the AGO itself—those who receive additional fees and opportunities and those who do not, or who receive lesser opportunities?
5. Impact on DPP and Magistrates: Officers at the ODPP and Magistrates work equally hard and contribute extensively. Why are officers of the ODPP discriminated against?
6. Conflict of Interest: How is it not a conflict of interest for the AGO to serve on boards of parastatal bodies while also acting as legal advisers?
7. Independence of the AGO: Why are the officers of the AGO perceived as being not independent as compared to the officers of the ODPP? Don’t these appointments and retainers compromise the independence of the specific officers of the AGO because are they not in fact favours from the government of the day?
8. Impact on AGO Functions: Can the AGO adequately fulfil its primary mandate as the principal legal adviser to the Government if it must also cater to the demands of parastatal and state-owned entities?
9. More importantly, are such practices lawful or constitutional?

In 2016, a controversy arose regarding Section 17 of the Law Officers Act which was enacted to prohibit private practice by law officers. You may refer to the AGO’s communiqué issued on 14 July 2016 but with a caution regarding arguments made. A brief will be sent to you and the leaders of the “Alliance du Changement”.

We were promised “Rupture” and the AGO should not be excluded.

We look forward to your response to these critical questions.

Sincerely,
Anonymous Officers