Are you enjoying GSA News? Get news stories delivered straight to your inbox!

Nandlall Obliterates Harmon in War of Words

Be sure to like our Facebook Page: Guyana, South America for more!

14th of August, 2020. Georgetown, Guyana, South America.

Last updated: August 14, 2020 at 23:13 pm

Attorney General of Guyana, Mr. Anil Nandlall, and Mr. Joseph Harmon, former cabinet member under the previous APNU/AFC government, have been trading a war of words over the termination of the services of Mr. Harmon at the Ministry of the Presidency and his “contractual benefits.”

The letters exchanged between the two are laced with “sagacious” rhetoric of a “capricious” nature. Let’s take a look.

Harmon’s Letter to Nandlall

Dear Mr. Nandlall,

Re: Post as Director General in the Ministry of the Presidency

Your letter captioned above and dated 13th of August, 2020, refers.

Please take note that I do not recognize your authority and your convoluted attempt to explain the arbitrary capricious action of a fraudulent government to deny me of contractual benefits.

I shall pursue this matter further.

With best regards,


Joseph F. Harmon

Nandlall’s Letter to Harmon

Dear Mr. Harmon,

Re: Post as Director General in the Ministry of the Presidency

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 13th day of August, 2020.

Over the past five (5) months, Guyana endured the misfortune and anguish of both your utterances and antics. From the tone and content of your letter, it is excruciatingly clear that reason has not yet resumed its natural seat.

That you have taken the liberty of making your reply a matter of public record, obliges me a rejoinder, if only to restore equilibrium. For the avoidance of doubt, personally, your non-recognition of my “authority” is absolutely of no moment.

That you, the General Secretary of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) choose to describe the current government as “fraudulent” or, accusatorily hurl that adjective, is axiomatic evidence of the existence of the condition to which I have made reference above.

As regard your complaint of the denial of “contractual benefits:” sagacious council, once solicited, will hopefully persuade you that “contractual benefits” only devolve upon the breach of subsisting, valid and enforceable contract. In your case, as I have informed previously, there is no longer such a contract. In consequence, your expectation is woefully misplaced.

Please be guided accordingly,

Yours faithfully,

Mohabir Anil Nandlall.

Let’s look on the bright side: at least they closed faithfully with best regards.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments