A very wise and understanding judge once said ---“let so much be admitted – all of us have erred; in the lives of everyone of us deeds have been done, words spoken, even thoughts conceived whose remembrance is grievous, whose burden is intolerable”. In light of the above wise words, we must give a charitable interpretation to everyman’s action, until we can prove that such an interpretation is clearly unsound and cannot be supported. On the other hand, we have to be as understanding of others’ failures or weaknesses as we are, or want others to be, of ours. Everyone will be subject to the judgment of his/her own conscience. Against those very basic principles, our Tri-Island State as a whole – and the Government in particular – have been placed in the full glare of public scrutiny, on the issue surrounding the actions of the ex-A.G., Mr. Jimmy Bristol, and the response or re-action of the P.M. Tillman Thomas. To begin with, it must be borne in mind that the P.M. is the one who must take responsibility for the appointment of the Ministers of Government and the A.G. Along the way from making the final choice of who is chosen to fill the post of A.G., and through-out the process of making the actual recommendation or request for confirmation by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission – (the JLSC) – unto the formal appointment by the Governor General, once the JLSC have given its blessing – the P.M. is the person in charge as the first among equals of the Government set up. And for those who may have forgotten about the above process, whenever the A.G. is not an elected politician of the party in power, or a Senator so appointed, the process must be carried out in compliance with our Constitution. And in addition thereto, because the A.G. is considered the head of the Lawyers Bar – whenever he is not a political appointee (elected or an appointed Senator) the proposal to the JLSC can be objected to by the Bar Association – where there are reasonable grounds for so doing, as happened in the case of Mr. Hugh Wildman when he was proposed by the P.M. in the last NNP Government; and in that case the objection was upheld and he failed to get the appointment, and his Appeal to the Court of Appeal was also turned down as without merit. Some persons may find it strange, that once the intended AG has been elected by the people in a General or by-election, or nominated by the P.M. to be a senator of the Government in power – his/her appointment does not need approval by the JLSC. But if he is intended to be a public officer A.G. he must get that stamp of approval by the JLSC. I will have some comments on that scenario later in this article, from a very different standpoint. So let us look at the reported facts in the Case at hand – to see if and where we can determine where right or wrong reside. The news first came to light from a Newspaper article in the St. Petersburg Times, in the U.S.A by one staff writer Curtis Krueger, on Friday 17th July, 2009. Briefly, it was a story about Emmanuel Ganpot who was a student of a U.S. College and got involved in drugs, and was convicted (on his guilty plea) and was due to start serving nearly six years in prison for the offence – back in April, 2003. The judge, before sending him off to serve the sentence, was very considerate and gave him a couple of weeks to get his affairs in order – I suppose because he had pleaded guilty and gave the Court no trouble with a long – drawn out trial. Instead of going back to serve the sentence he ran away to France and then to England , and was living a big life because his mother was well off. In fact the mother and family members paid off the Bail bond she had entered for him – to keep the Bondsman off his track while he was on the run. But he was also a musician and was living it up on the party circuit in Paris and London , and was appearing on Cameras in those joints and FBI tracked him down. He was brought back to the U.SA. and is now facing a sentence of anything up to 110 years in prison. Ganpot is now represented by two highly regarded Criminal Attorneys for the sentencing hearing due in August (13th) next month. The story reported that he is also getting help from his stepfather – “the Attorney General of Grenada no less”. Mr. Jimmy Bristol is now married to Ganpot’s mother, so naturally he feels obligated to help her son – who wouldn’t. When I first read the article which was on some website – I was hoping against hope, that Jimmy had not written his mitigation pleas on the AG’s letter heading, since he could have used the well recognised letterhead of “Henry Henry and Bristol ” – and explain therein what his present job was. But he later admitted that he had, in fact used the AG’s letter head, and now realsied that was a gross in-discretion on his part. He has explained, that nowhere in the letter did he say he was writing on behalf of, or with the knowledge, or connivance, or support of the Government of Grenada – even though young Ganpot is the natural son of a Grenadian national living in Grenada . But he candidly recognised in hindsight – that the plea on the AG’s Letter head could convey the wrong impression and cause embarrassment to the powers-that-be; he used words to that effect. At the end of his press interview, he said that he was leaving the matter up to the P.M. to come to a decision as he saw fit. My first reaction to that position, was that he was putting the P.M. in a very awkward situation – to have to decide how wrong or how embarrassing the indiscretion was, and what penalty to impose – if any. But I also felt that having stated his side of the story – he would have been “BIG” enough to accept the P.M.’s decision as the P.M. saw fit – just as he, the A.G., had left it up to the P.M. to decide. And therefore, when I saw and heard the ex-A.G in another T/V interview – after he had acted on the P.M’s decision that he should re-sign – in which he was saying he did not agree with the P.M, and was giving reasons like – it was not a Cabinet decision because Cabinet had not met, and the matter was mis-construed and taken out of context, and words to that effect – I was somewhat dis-appointed with the ex-A.G’s new position. And worse yet, I am even hearing that the ex-A.G is reported to have said – that he could have resigned some months ago, but he stayed on so as not to have been seen as rocking the boat; not his exact words but sentiments to that effect. If that was said, many would now be saying that he would have done the Government a favour by leaving then – since this latest indiscretion would not have taken place to further send the wrong impression about the Government and cause embarrassment. I heard Jimmy giving some details of what his office had been doing about the judicial needs of the Country, and he promised to continue that work in conjunction with the Bar Association. This is all very well and should be as expected, but after the period from which our people emerged after the Elections last year, the focus was in the wrong direction – and because of that lack of appreciation of which way the political ramification should be heading, the Government ended up getting a lot of licks for in-activity. It is in that context I said earlier in this article that I would make some comments about appointment to the position of A.G. As the principal legal adviser to the Government, on all matters of the administration of the state – it is my view that the AG must have a deeper and much wider understanding and hands-on approach of the political happenings and expectations of the people, to be able to perform his duties effectively and timely. In those twelve months of the Government’s operations in office – after all that was said and projected and listed as wrong-doings, in the years leading up to July 8th 2008 – the lack of action and transparent activity to put right the wrong-doings, or at least to challenge their continued existence, was very sadly lacking and left those in control and with the authority to take the action very negligent. And in my humble opinion, that action should have come from the Legal department – if the principal legal advisor was more at ground level with the philosophy and political thinking of the party in control. We may yet hear of actions that were listed to take place, in keeping with the promises and statements on the campaign trail but which have been put on the back burners. Whereas in other matters, like for example the Cap Bank affairs, actions were taken that were clearly loaded in conflicts of interests. But these are now behind us and on the road ahead in the Legal department – it is to be hoped that the new person in charge would be someone who has both the Political outlook and the commitment to the group in control – as well as the legal standing to be head of the Bar. I heard Senator Chester Humphrey on the T/V criticizing the Government, for making a mountain out of what he considered a storm in a teacup. He is, of course, entitled to his views and assessment of the issue in hand – but I cannot agree with him that the matter is so trivial it should have been overlooked. It was clearly much more than that. The ex-AG, having admitted that in hindsight he accepts that the use of the Government’s Legal Department Letterhead was a serious indiscretion on his part – he should have tendered his resignation, and left it up to the P.M. to decide how right or wrong he was. The way Jimmy handled the matter – after it had become breaking news on the global stage – he put the P.M. on the spot, as a challenge to Tillman’s so often repeated principles of high ethical standards, integrity in public office, honesty and transparency and good governance. In the circumstances the P.M had no other choice. By Lloyd Noel