Justice Franklin Holder this morning recused himself from presiding over Carvil Duncan’s challenge to his suspension as Public Service Commission Chairman.
Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo last Friday authorised Attorney General Basil Williams, SC, to request that Justice Holder recuses himself, in the light of his fear that he would not receive a fair hearing.
However, Williams did not appear before Justice Holder this morning. Instead, he was represented by Attorneys Judy Stuart-Adonis and Collene Liverpool.
Nagamootoo’s letter, which was released by Williams’s confidential secretary, had 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 a 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.
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 Roxane 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 the 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 recuses himself from further hearing the matter.
A statement by Anil Nandlall follows:
This morning, the Carvil Duncan case was called before Justice Franklyn Holder in the High Court, Georgetown. I appeared for Carvil Duncan. The Attorney General did not appear. He was represented by two junior counsel. No application was made to the Judge for him to recuse himself.
After the appearances were entered, the Judge read from a prepared text. I summarize the salient points made:
- the Judge recited, at length, what transpired in his Court on the last occasion.
- the Judge repeated the disrespectful comments which the AG made;
- the Judge made it clear that when the AG said that, the last person who said that to him was “a Magistrate, who is now dead”. The AG offered no explanation in relation to that statement;
- Therefore, the statements peddled in the press by the AG that there was an exchange between him and the Judge about someone failing exams at the law school, was a blatant lie; no such exchange took place in the Court;
- the AG committed contempt in the face of the Court;
- that he (the Judge) did not lose his power to punish the AG for contempt because he did not exercise the power when the contempt took place;
- that the Judge retains the power to do so, at any time;
- that the Judge offered the AG an opportunity to apologise but the AG refused to do so and is reported in the Press to have made remarks which were again disrespectful.
Unfortunately, having said all of that the Judge did not cite the AG for contempt.
Instead, the Judge indicated that he will recuse himself from the case on his own motion. The Judge emphasized that his decision was made some time ago. The Judge pointed out that the ground for his recusal is that the matter has become too political.
In the end, the Attorney General’s conduct and subsequent public lies in relation to this matter, though found to be contemptuous, attract no sanction. Further, the Attorney General gets exactly what he wants; for the Judge to recuse himself.
I put it mildly when I say that the Judiciary has failed to properly assert its majesty or defend itself, competently, in this matter. I have no doubt that it has failed public expectations. Its actions/ omissions in this case lend themselves to the interference that it is buckling under executive pressure and influence. That there will be a consequential loss of public confidence in the judicial system, I am in no doubt.
