Following a meeting of judges on allegations against Attorney General Basil Williams that he threatened a sitting judge, a decision was taken to write President David Granger on the matter, sources say.
One source told this newspaper that the decision to write the President was a unanimous one and that Granger should get the letter sometime this week.
Williams saw himself at the centre of scathing criticisms after his predecessor Anil Nandall last week alleged that he threatened Justice Franklin Holder during the court hearing involving suspended Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Carvil Duncan.
The Supreme Court has issued no statement on the matter. All of the judges of the court attended a meeting on Friday morning for about half of an hour but no statement was made.
Sources say that the Williams issue was discussed and the decision taken to write the President.
The Attorney General has denied that he threatened the Judge saying that he was out of patience with media houses that continuously try to tarnish his good name with their reportage.
On noting the reports he said that his lawyers were preparing to write letters to the two newspapers that published the allegations without speaking to him.
Observers have noted that even in his own rendering of the events of the day in question, Williams’ words did not comport with what was expected from the Attorney General, Minister of Legal Affairs and the Leader of the Bar.
Nandall has said that he has Duncan and attorney Rajendra Jaigobin, who were present in court during the hearing, as witnesses to corroborate his claim. But Williams said on Friday that he has three witnesses – including two attorneys from his chambers – and they can verify that he never threatened anyone.
Williams told a press conference on Friday that when Justice Holder indicated that he was going to adjourn the matter, he asked whether he could be permitted to ask Duncan’s confidential secretary one final question.
He was permitted to do so. According to Williams, after noticing that the judge was about to leave the bench, he enquired whether the answer to the last question was recorded. “The judge to my surprise said, ‘Mr. Williams you are not in charge of my court.’ And I said, ‘No sir’ …but the judge then said to me ‘Mr. Williams I interpret what you are saying to mean that I deliberately did not record the answer that was given by the witness previously and I take great umbrage at that.’ And I said, ‘sir surely that is not on your record, because I never said anything to that effect or intended anything like that,’” he explained.
Williams recalled that he told the judge that his comments reminded him of a similar allegation made against him by a magistrate several years ago.
“He [the magistrate] cited me for contempt and the rest is history. And I said that since then I have always been very particular about what I say to the courts and to be precise so that nothing else like that could return and I said coincidentally that magistrate is dead now and I moved on,” he said.a
