The Office of the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Carl Singh yesterday criticized Supreme Court Registrar Sita Ramlal over allegations of impropriety she has levelled against him about a court backlog reduction exercise, and accused her of approving an unjustified payment of half a million dollars to herself, “as a related disbursement of the backlog exercise.”
“As a result of enquiries and from the information provided the Acting Chancellor has been made aware that in at least one instance the Registrar, over a period of a few months approved a payment to herself… the Acting Chancellor is unaware of any reason justifying the Registrar’s entitlement to such sum”, the statement said.
But the Registrar responded saying that the payment had been approved by the government for support staff in the 2005-2007 backlog programme while noting that she considered it unfortunate that the Chancellor had resorted to, “issuing press releases in an attempt to intimidate and embarrass” her.
Ms Ramlal attached a copy of a of a letter she had sent Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr Roger Luncheon in October 2005 seeking approval for expenses outlined in the correspondence as necessary for support staff in the backlog exercise during the period October 31-December 31, 2005.
The Chancellor’s office also questioned a number of detailed payments at the Registry ranging from the alleged expenditure for a “Bench and Bar meeting” that never happened to the payment of supplies that were not received, Christmas staff parties and contracts, saying that the acting Chancellor was of the view that the Registrar, “is or might be aware that he has come into possession of documentary evidence, which is to be referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation and action.”
Ms Ramlal dismissed the allegation about payments, and detailed the procedure in place by pointing to various checks and balances. She said also, that the payments for the events questioned by the Chancellor had all been audited by the Auditor General’s department and, “tabled and approved by the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament.
“After the institution of criminal proceedings against the Registrar, a request was made by the Registrar for the Auditor General to audit the accounts of the Supreme Court prior to her request to be temporarily sent on leave during the hearing of the charges against her. This audit has been commenced and is expected to be completed early next week.”
But in a sharp response to her letter to the HPS, in which she made several allegations against the Chancellor, his office issued a statement yesterday saying that he was “both pained and disgusted at the nasty, scurrilous and baseless attempt by the Registrar to sensationalise a non-issue.”
The Chancellor’s office also referred to Ms Ramlal’s letter to Luncheon as nothing more than an attempt to intimidate him, saying that it contained a number of inaccuracies and falsehoods. The office said too, that the letter also contained language that was defamatory of the acting Chancellor, “who over the next few days will be pursuing the legal options available to him.”
The Registrar wrote Dr Luncheon on Wednesday last accusing the acting Chancellor of poor execution of a 2005-2007 programme to reduce the backlog of cases and of “enjoying the rich rewards” of $20.9M of government’s money set aside for the scheme. Ms Ramlal alleged impropriety saying that the Chancellor executed the project lopsidedly by assigning himself most of the cases, and that he aggrandized $20.9M of the $41.2M expended by the administration for dealing with 1,394 cases of the 2778 cases that were concluded.
According to the statement from the Office of the Chancellor, Ms Ramlal was never privy to the discussions that Chancellor Singh and Dr Luncheon had on the agreement for the backlog exercise. It said also that there were no qualifications imposed upon the agreement, and the conditions which the Registrar had cited in her letter had been “invented by her to meet the tenor of her letter to Dr. Luncheon.”
The Chancellor convened a meeting of all the judges of the High Court and communicated to them government’s undertaking to pay $15,000 for every case in the backlog that was completed, the statement said, and that the acting Chancellor indicated that there was no compulsion for any judge to participate in the exercise since cases would be assigned on the request of a judge.
“The registrar’s assertion that there was to be equitable distribution of cases is pure hogwash. Such an arrangement would have carried with it an element of compulsion, which the exercise did not have,” the statement said.
The Chancellor’s office noted that apart from his efforts, only Justice William Ramlal showed interest and had a significant input in the exercise, and that “the Acting Chancellor finds it more than passing strange, that the Registrar has made no comment on the income derived by Justice Ramlal from his commendable interest and contribution to the exercise.”
“The Acting Chancellor categorically rejects as being a disgusting untruth, the Registrar’s assertion that after the appointment of Justice Ian Chang, he came back to the High Court and discharged hundreds of cases. The Acting Chancellor completed all matters for which notices had been served on the parties before the court, before he left his chambers in the High Court but once having moved chambers, he never returned to discharge hundreds of cases,” the office said.
But Ms Ramlal disputed this, and attached to her response, a copy of a notice sent out by the acting Chancellor on December 10, 2007 in his stated capacity as Chief Justice for a hearing on December 12, 2007 in the matter of CCS (Guy) Ltd and Michael Whorts, which came after the November 16, 2007 ruling of Justice William Ramlal that one person could not hold both the position of Chancellor and Chief Justice.
And in responding to the Registrar’s assertion that the acting Chancellor flouted the laws and acted as Chief Justice after he became Chancellor, the office said that he had no recollection of ever having been served with a copy of the order of Justice Ramlal which would have disclosed to him the terms of the said order, and that he had become aware of the judge’s decision only from media reports.
According to the office, he saw a handwritten draft of what appeared to be an order of court several weeks after moving chambers, and that “the document carried corrections in a handwriting style which was clearly not that of the author. Both handwriting styles would be familiar to judges and clerks of the High Court.”
“The Chancellor wishes for it to be known that for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 every payment made to him was approved by the Registrar, after submission of the completed list of cases. All payments were made to him over those years without query or objection from the Registrar,” the office said.
Further, it stated that in the Annual Reports of the Supreme Court for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 which are prepared and signed by the Registrar no complaint, query or adverse comment was made about the backlog reduction exercise in any of the reports for those years.
