Attorney General Basil Williams was yesterday told that he needed to correct glaring errors in the court documents he filed challenging two of the High Court decisions in the no-confidence case, before the Court of Appeal can hear his applications for a stay of those judgments and conservatory orders to keep the President, the Cabinet and government in place until the appeals are heard and determined.
Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud was not persuaded by the continuous protest and arguments emanating from Williams SC. At the start of the proceedings, the judge made it clear that he could not hear the cases as they did not list all the respondents. In the AG’s case against Christopher Ram, which was the first to be called, he pointed out too that a fresh Notice of Appeal was filed and though it listed all of the respondents, it was dated February 15 while the accompanying summons is dated February 5.
“We have a problem here…this summons for stay would predate this Notice of Appeal…the summons hangs onto the original Notice of Appeal filed where you did not add the Leader of the Opposition,” Justice Persaud informed.
In response Williams said, “I disagree with you. The appeal was properly filed. If a party might have been omitted it doesn’t invalidate or void the application…The party has subsequently been added.”
Earlier this month, the AG applied to the court to grant several orders pending the appeal of the decision in the action he brought against Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, and the decision in the action initiated by Ram, a chartered accountant.
In each case, the court is being asked to grant an order for an interim stay of the effect of the January 31st judgment and order(s) of Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire until the hearing and determination of the Summons filed; an order for a stay of the effect of the judgment and order(s) until the hearing and determination of the appeal filed, a conservatory order, preserving the status quo ante that the President, Cabinet and all Ministers of the Government remain in office until the hearing and determination of the appeal; and such further or other order as the Court may deem just.
Explaining the presence of the second Notice of Appeal in the Ram matter, Williams said that on Friday at a meeting to deal with the preparation and settling of the records in the four appeals filed, it was decided that the other parties in the case should be added. He said that the filing of the newest Notice of Appeal was to reflect this.
“You have two Notices of Appeal [and] we can’t have two…The reason for filing the new Notice of Appeal was obviously to correct the deficiencies in the old one…” Justice Persaud informed while adding that the summonses will have to be withdrawn and refiled with the correct information before they can be heard by the court. The accompanying affidavit of support by State Counsel Raeanna Clarke, he said, will also have to be resworn. He said that the contents of the “proper” Notice of Appeal should have been “filtered down” to the summons.
Input from some of the other attorneys in the proceedings did not favour the AG’s position and they pointed out that a new appeal and not an amended appeal was filed. Despite efforts by the AG to get Justice Persaud to amend the first Notice of Appeal, the judge made it clear that as a single judge he could not do so as that is a matter for the court’s full bench.
Williams told the court that the state solicitor who filed the second Notice of Appeal is hospitalised. He made it clear that she has to explain the circumstances behind the refiling since he was not in court last Friday. The judge urged the AG to look at what may have occurred at his Chambers that led to the blunders.
Omitted
In the other summons, APNU’s General Secretary Joseph Harmon’s name was omitted.
Clearly frustrated, Williams pleaded with the court to “take arguments” as he was seeking to have the second Notice of Appeal withdrawn and the first amended to reflect the correct information. He stressed that this is something in the “rubric” and not a substantive issue. “How is this a fundamental issue where there is a simple omission of a party? What is our courts coming to?” he asked, later adding that “This is just like Charrandass (Persaud) voting. You mobilise a whole country.” It was Persaud’s `yes’ vote that resulted in the no-confidence motion being approved 33 to 32.
Williams insisted that there was no need to summon three judges just to deal with the omission of a name. In the Ram case, he said that Jagdeo was not completed excluded from the proceedings as he had been served and his attorney was present for the proceedings.
Jagdeo’s attorney Anil Nandlall insisted that Williams’ arguments have no merit before insisting that a single judge cannot make the amendment being requested. He said that clearly an omission has occurred and question now is “How should we correct that omission?”
“Your Honour cannot add or minus or subtract from that Notice of Appeal since that is not before your Honour,” he stressed before asking the court to dismiss Williams’ applications until the appeals are rectified.
Harmon’s attorney Roysdale Forde indicated to the court that he will stand by whatever the court rules.
Not giving up, Williams insisted that Justice Persaud had jurisdiction to make the amendment. He continued arguing for about ten more minutes before the judge reminded him that he already has a proper Notice of Appeal and all that he has to do is withdraw the first appeal and refile the summonses in both matters.
“We are wasting time here. This is very, very simple. Let’s be practical and let’s get on with it rather than wasting time and arguing all over the place,” he said while maintaining that he has no jurisdiction to amend a Notice of Appeal.
“The rules are the rules. I didn’t write the rules. I am ruling that I have no jurisdiction to amend…” he said when Williams persisted.
The case ended with a commitment by Williams that proper summonses will be filed today. The court did not set a new date for hearing. The court is expected to hear a similar application and an appeal recently filed on behalf of Compton Reid, a private citizen.
Nandlall told the media later that he is disappointed with the outcome of the proceedings. “We wanted this matter to be expeditiously disposed of as quickly as possible so that the other aspects of the matter can be dealt with.
“Unfortunately, the Attorney General’s appeal was riddled with mistakes and we spent the entire hearing, hearing him trying to defend the indefensible. At the end of the day, he has to take an adjournment to correct all the errors because he omitted to name the Leader of the Opposition as a party in the appeal and he omitted to name Joseph Harmon.”
Nandlall informed that it was he who pointed out the errors last Friday. “I think they made more errors than corrections so the case was basically stillborn today. We couldn’t proceed with anything of substance so the Attorney General has been given permission to rectify all the mistakes and to come back,” he said.
Williams, for his part, told reporters that there is nothing for him to amend. “If Mr Ram sued [and] the court ruled in Ram’s case [and] I appealed the decision and Mr Ram’s name and we put Mr Jagdeo and others as persons who are interested and served. I don’t know what happened on Friday but apparently the State Solicitor received some inclination or whatever…but the result is that she filed over another appeal adding the name of the Leader of the Opposition, so I don’t think not having the name in the first place, but the name was there in the appeal as a person interested, is fatal. Any discrepancy in the rubric of a matter can’t be fatal and there is (ample) authorities for it,” he said.
He added that in order to avoid any delay in the hearing of this important matter, government filed early. “I don’t agree…It is a simple discrepancy in that she didn’t bring the name from the back and put it in front.”
