Attorney General Basil Williams SC will first have to face Justice Franklyn Holder and apologise this morning before his application that the Judge recuse himself from a case can be heard, Anil Nandlall says.
“The first order of business for the day would be for the Judge to address the matter of the apology (from Williams) before an application for the recusing be made,” Nandlall, Williams’ predecessor as AG told Stabroek News yesterday.
“If Williams refuses (to apologise) then Justice Holder should charge him for contempt,” he added.
Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo last Friday authorized Williams to request that Justice 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 authorization on Friday and cited the judge’s complaint against Williams stemming from an incident at the last hearing of the case.
At the last hearing on March 23, Justice Holder rose from the bench following an exchange with Williams without adjourning the matter. It was the acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards who announced on Thursday that the case has been set for continuation today.
Justice Holder, in his formal complaint to the Chancellor, made it clear that he would not be hearing Williams as an attorney unless he apologises in open court for his conduct on March 23rd. 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.
Nandlall noted that that the Judge had not adjourned the court and he has said that Williams’ behaviour was contemptuous. As such, Justice Holder could take the issue up from where it was left off, when he walked out of the court without adjourning it .
“The argument advanced by the Attorney General that the judge is functus officio, is absolutely wrong. That is because a judge never loses his power to cite a contemnor for contempt. In this matter it is not as if the judge proceeded with the case, after the commission of the contempt. This is the first time the court resumes session since the commission of the contempt. I cannot see how a court will lose its right to address the contempt,” the former Attorney General, who is Williams’ opposite in the case, posited.
He believes too that Justice Holder should not recuse himself as he has not demonstrated any bias towards Williams to justify this. “The Judge should not recuse himself. This is because proper reason has not been put forward for him to do so. The Prime Minister’s reasons advanced are frivolous and vexatious accusing a judge of (likely) bias is a very serious matter. How is the judge biased? What wrong or action has the judge committed which would lead to the (possible) conclusion that the Prime Minister would not have a fair hearing. Taking the PM’s argument to its logical conclusion, had the judge cited the AG for contempt and jailed him, then the judge would not have been biased,” Nandlall argues.
“The Attorney General…disgraced himself, the high office which he holds as Attorney General and Head of the Bar, the entire legal profession and the administration of justice by his outrageous utterances which are well documented and need no recitation. That he committed contempt in the face of the court by any objective standard ought not to be in doubt to the rational mind. The sitting judge, exercising commendable restraint, magnanimously exited the bench, rather than cite the AG for contempt and call upon him to show cause why he should not be imprisoned,” he noted.
“The judge opted to write to his superior, lodging a complaint against the AG’s conduct and rightfully asserted that he will not hear the AG unless he apologizes for his despicable conduct. The AG, whose ego is larger than the administration of justice, decides that he will not apologize,” he adds.
Prime Minister Nagamootoo got his fair of criticism from Nandlall for the letter he wrote on the matter seeking Justice Holder’s recusal.
Nandlall said “It is that factual matrix which produces this bizarre letter which seeks to convert the judge, who is the victim of the abuse, into the villain! This can happen in no civilized country where there is rule of law and a system of democracy. This letter is nothing short of a most comical and clumsy conspiracy hatched between the AG and the Prime Minister to avoid the AG apologizing to Justice Franklyn Holder”.
Further, he notes, “As a lawyer, he (the PM) should have never lent himself to such a sleazy and senseless scheme. Imagine, the PM is asking the judge to recuse himself from the case, essentially, because the judge did not cite and jail the AG for contempt! Failing to jail the AG makes the Judge biased against the PM! Only intellectual giants like Williams + Nagamootoo can conceive such a `sophisticated’ plot.”
Calling the acts of Williams and Nagamootoo juvenile, Nandlall said that as two of the most senior functionaries of this Administration, their manoeuvre was tantamount to an “exhibition of authoritarianism”.
He posited, “This strikes at the heart of the doctrine of separation of powers. Imagine if every litigant, on his own volition, decides to abuse the judge hearing his case and then claim the judge is biased, what will happen in the system?”
A now practising private attorney, Nandlall believes that if Justice Holder does not stand firm on the issue and not yield to the pressures from the government, it will give the impression of an overall weak judiciary. “If it does not, the haemorrhage of public confidence which will flow may be irreparable. The Judiciary may not be able to sanction anyone for disrespecting its officers and processes in the future, without being accused of hypocrisy and bias,” he opined.
