The government did not have seniority in mind when Justice Charles Ramson was sworn in as an Appeal Court Judge by President Bharrat Jagdeo two days ahead of two others, Head of the Presidential Secretariat and Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon has said.
Asked to respond to a February 3, 2008 letter to the editor of Stabroek News by attorney-at-law KA Juman-Yassin, expressing concern that Ramson, a supporter of the party in government, had been sworn in two days ahead of Justices BS Roy and Yonette Cummings-Edwards thereby giving him seniority over the two, Dr Luncheon told this newspaper that in the context of the reform of the justice sector, “We are not going to slavishly pay attention to this notion of seniority.”
“We are looking at merit,” he said, “and if you are a good appeal court judge, no matter if someone is ten years ahead of you, if you got the merit, you will be appointed and put in position of authority. That is our position.”
Juman-Yassin in the letter said that he was disturbed over the way in which the swearing in of the three justices of appeal was done. Ramson, he noted, had been sworn in on January 28, 2008 and Justices Roy and Cummings-Edwards two days later.
As far as he was aware, he said, there was no valid reason why these persons, being in Guyana, were not all sworn in at the same time, and he felt that Ramson had been sworn in before the others to give him the advantage of being considered senior to them.
The reason why seniority was important, he continued, was because when the Chancellor of the Judiciary went on leave or was away, the Chief Justice would be appointed to act as Chancellor and the next senior Justice of Appeal, all things being equal, would act as the Chief Justice.
He said too that when an appeal was heard the Chancellor was the chairman of the tribunal. If he was not there the Chief Justice would head the tribunal if he was sitting. However, where there was a full complement of judges – in which case the Chief Justice would not normally sit – the chairman of the court and/or tribunal would be the next most senior judge.
He further contended that when promotion had to be made the most senior judge, all things again being equal, would be considered first. “Thus if there should be a vacancy in the post of Chief Justice then the next senior judge should first be considered,” he said, adding that at present Justice Nandram Kissoon was the next senior judge and he was scheduled to retire shortly.
By manipulating Ramson to be sworn in before the others, he would become the next senior judge, the attorney argued, stating that this was palpably wrong and made the “three judges start not in pari passu [equally without preference].”
He said even before the swearing in it had been rumoured that Ramson would be sworn in before the others, and he had mentioned it to a judge of the high court on January, 25, 2008. “This will not bring the confidence that should abound with the Court of Appeal,” he went on, asking “Why must Justices Roy and Cummings-Edwards become junior to Mr Ramson?”
He said if Chancellor Carl Singh took the decision to elevate Ramson before the others, it would be wrong; if it was the President, “then he should not have done so as our judiciary needs to be respected and there must not be perceptions that any judge is being favoured or being manoeuvred into a position for later elevation”; and if it was Ramson’s demand as part of his acceptance of the appointment then it should have been rejected.
He said he was voicing his concern because Ramson was a former Attorney General and an open hardcore member and/or supporter of the PPP, and it was the first time such a political person was being appointed to the judiciary and moreso, to the highest court of this country.
