Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo last Friday authorised Attorney General Basil Williams, SC, to request that Justice Franklin Holder recuse himself from presiding over Carvil Duncan’s challenge to his suspension as Public Service Commission Chairman, in light of his fear that he will not receive a fair hearing.
Nagamootoo, who is a party in Duncan’s civil suit, issued the authorisation on Friday and cited the judge’s complaint against Williams, who he wants to apologise for his conduct during the last hearing.
Nagamootoo’s letter, which was released by Williams’s confidential secretary yesterday, says that said that due to the alleged courtroom confrontation and the judge’s subsequent petition to acting Chancellor Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, he was of the opinion that “neither the state, nor, I will receive fair hearing in the matter.”
At the last hearing on March 23, Justice Holder rose from the bench in the middle of an exchange with Williams without adjourning the matter. It was the acting Chancellor who recently announced that the case had been set for continuation tomorrow.
Justice Holder, in his formal complaint to her, made it clear that he would not be hearing Williams as an attorney unless he apologises in open court for his conduct. Williams, for his part, responded to the judge’s complaint in a letter to President David Granger and he made it clear that he saw no reason for an apology.
Nagamootoo, in his letter, which was also sent to President Granger, Justice Cummings-Edwards and acting Chief Justice Roxanne George-Wiltshire SC, listed three reasons for him concluding that he would not receive a fair hearing.
First, he noted that the judge had the power to handle the alleged incident between himself and the Attorney General amicably in court instead of retiring to his chambers without the formal rising of the court. Second, he pointed to the judge’s petition to the acting Chancellor requiring Williams to compulsorily apologise in open court before continuation of the matter; and third, the forwarding of the said petition by the acting Chancellor to President Granger, who is also a party to the case brought by Duncan.
“Based on all the above mentioned grounds, I am of the opinion that I would be prejudiced in the suit because my attorney is barred from being heard in the matter,” he wrote.
As a result, he said he was authorising Williams to request that the judge recuse himself from further hearing the matter.
Several attorneys told Sunday Stabroek yesterday that Williams has to appear before Justice Holder on Monday as he is duty-bound to do so. It was explained that in a matter such as this one, Williams will have to make an application in court and it would then be up to the judge to recuse himself or decide to continue hearing the matter.
One attorney said that in most instances judges do recuse themselves but they also have the right not to do so if a reasonable case is not made.
It was Duncan’s lawyer, Anil Nandlall, who took to Facebook hours after the last hearing had ended and charged that Justice Holder had been threatened in open court.
In a letter penned to the acting Chancellor, days after the confrontation had occurred, Justice Holder said that 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 scandalised by his despicable conduct,” he wrote in his report, which was seen by this newspaper.
Justice Holder called Williams’s behaviour in court “contemptuous.”
Williams has repeatedly denied threatening the judge or committing any wrongs.
Williams a week after the incident stopped short of publicly apologizing for his conduct but expressed his willingness to work along with the judge to have the matter sorted out.
“…We can’t allow Nandlall to create this problem and then we leave it unresolved…The judge and I will resolve the issue,” Williams had told reporters during at engagement held at his Chambers.
He had told a press conference prior to the release of Justice Holder’s letter that the judge had interpreted one of his comments as an accusation that he was not recording evidence accurately and took umbrage.
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.
In his subsequent explanation to President Granger, Williams argued that there was no reason for him to apologise to Justice Holder, whom he suggested should recuse himself from hearing the case.
He 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.
“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,” he wrote.
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.
The acting Chancellor sent copies of the judge’s letter to both Williams and the president.
In a statement to the press last Thursday, Justice Cummings-Edwards said she forwarded the judge’s letter to the president “purely as a matter of information and courtesy,” since Williams holds the “executive” positions of AG and Minister of Legal Affairs.
According to the acting Chancellor, a copy of the letter was also sent to Williams “for his information, guidance and any response” but he had not directly responded.
However, Williams later said that he was never asked to reply and he released all correspondences between himself and Justice Cummings-Edwards concerning the matter.
