Four weeks after acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards made a commitment to update the media on the complaint made by Justice Franklin Holder against Attorney-General (AG) Basil Williams SC, no report has been forthcoming.
“An official report will be given to the press as soon everything is completed… within a matter of days,” Justice Cummings-Edwards had said on March 28, after revealing that she is in receipt of information on the matter, which she said was being addressed at the time.
Over the last few days, Stabroek News has attempted to schedule an interview with the Chancellor to address several issues, including the complaint. However, her office indicated that she was unavailable and that this newspaper would be contacted once she becomes available.
The behaviour by the AG in Justice Holder’s court has raised concerns about his conduct and the relationship between the executive and the judiciary. Justice Holder issued a letter of complaint to Justice Cummings-Edwards on the incident and the judiciary later discussed the matter and a letter was dispatched to President David Granger.
Members of the legal fraternity have expressed concern that the judiciary is yet to make its position on the issue public.
Following the March 23 hearing of the case involving embattled Public Service Commission (PSC) Chairman Carvil Duncan, former AG Anil Nandlall, who is representing him, accused Williams of threatening Justice Holder, who was hearing the matter. Williams strongly denied this but Nandlall insisted that the life of the judge was threatened.
All of the judges of the Supreme Court attended a meeting following the courtroom incident but no statement was made.
Stabroek News was told that the issue was discussed and it was following this meeting that a unanimous decision was taken to write to President Granger on the matter. However, observers have questioned why Justice Cummings-Edwards contacted Granger on the matter when they head two independent branches of government—the judiciary and the executive, respectively.
Holder, in a letter to Justice Cummings-Edwards, made no mention of a threat but said that the Williams’ behaviour was not in keeping with court procedure and he described it as “despicable.”
In his account, Justice Holder said he left the bench after Williams uttered the words “I could say what I want to say and when I want to say it, I have always been like that.” Justice Holder said he left the bench without adjourning the matter or giving instructions to either party.
“I am not prepared to sit to hear Mr Williams as an attorney-at-law in any matter whatsoever, unless he makes a genuine and meaningful apology to my satisfaction, in open court, both to me and to the Members of the Bar since they too were scandalized by his despicable conduct,” he wrote.
In reply to a letter from President Granger, who has sought an explanation, Williams said that there is no reason for him to apologize to Justice in Holder, whom he suggests should recuse himself from hearing the case brought by Duncan.
In his response, dated April 15, 2017, the AG denied that he acted inappropriately and also charged that if his conduct had been contemptuous, the judge had a duty, under the Contempt of Court Act, to inform him of such before leaving the bench on the day of the encounter.
He also called into question the decision by the judiciary to approach the President in order to resolve the issue, while noting that such an approach is unknown to Guyana’s jurisprudence because from time immemorial, the common law has granted the power to a judge presiding in a court to cite and punish persons for contempt in the face of the court.
“Contempt of court is a criminal offence and Justice Holder was required under the provisions of section 12 of the said act, to inform the Hon Attorney General of the contempt with which he wished to charge him before the rising of the court on the same day,” he wrote.
“Justice Holder did not inform, warn or in any manner convey to the Hon Attorney General that he considered he was being contemptuous before he left the courtroom that day and was therefore functus officio.
“Justice Holder could not lawfully almost two days later by letter purport to raise accusations of contempt against the Hon Attorney General for what he alleges occurred in his court previously.
“But this is exactly what Justice Holder has done,” he argued, while also challenging the judge’s account of their encounter.
Williams had told a press conference 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.
