On September 8th, acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire is set to commence hearing the application filed by attorney Timothy Jonas who is challenging last year’s appointment by former President David Granger of four senior counsel.
The matter has been fixed for 10 on that morning.
Contending that the president has no authority to appoint senior counsel, Jonas is arguing that his appointment of attorneys-at-law Jamela Ali, Roysdale Forde, Mursalene Bacchus and Stanley Moore is “entirely void and of no effect.”
Against this background, Jonas is seeking from the court, an Order of Certiorari directed to the Attorney General (AG), quashing as wholly void and ultra vires, what he terms the purported appointments made by Granger.
He is also hoping that the court would grant him costs and any further order as it deems just.
The AG is listed as respondent in the application.
Outlining the grounds for his application, Jonas (the applicant) says that the power and discretion to admit persons to practice at the Bar, to preside over such persons, to discipline, suspend and disbar such persons is conferred by the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act and common law on the High Court, the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana.
The Full Bench of the High Court, he said, has from time to time in the exercise of an inherent jurisdiction, exercised a discretion to confer on attorneys who have practiced with distinction, the dignity of Senior Counsel.
Jonas said that the status of Senior Counsel is fundamentally important to the legal practitioner, both within the legal fraternity by virtue of the courtesies extended to Senior Counsel by the judiciary and the Bar at large, and in the public domain, by public perception of the professional standard of legal service.
On December 31st, 2019 then President Granger had communicated to the public via the Ministry of the Presidency’s website of his decision to appoint the four lawyers as Senior Counsel.
The appointments took effect on January 1st, 2020.
Jonas argues, however, that there is no statutory or other power conferred on the President—whether as President or otherwise, to make such a decision or to appoint attorneys Senior Counsel, and is therefore “entirely void and of no effect.”
He goes on to contend that insofar as the President—a member of the executive, purports to make a decision within the province of the inherent discretion of the High Court, his trespass into the realm of the judiciary violates Article 122 of the Constitution, and is “illegal and void.”
That article states “All courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of direction and control.”
The applicant is of the view that the appointments made by Granger interferes with the jurisdiction of the Judiciary.
In an affidavit supporting his application, Jonas submits through his attorney Teni Housty that the dignity of Senior Counsel is one recognized throughout the Commonwealth as being conferred on practising attorneys who have sufficiently earned the respect of the court by dint of the quality of their practice and personal integrity to warrant the honour, and the conferral of the status of Senior Counsel.
That dignity of Senior Counsel, he said, is by virtue of its widespread recognition fundamentally important to the legal practitioner; adding that within the legal fraternity, courtesies are extended to Senior Counsel by the judiciary in court including during court proceedings, and by the Bar at large.
He then went on to add that beyond the legal fraternity, in the public domain, the dignity implies to the public the certification by the judiciary of the professional acumen and personal integrity of the practitioner, so that a significant market advantage is enjoyed by Senior Counsel in the conduct of his/her practice by the public perception of the judicially acknowledged professional standard of his/her legal service.
Jonas deposed that during litigation conducted in June of this year, he observed a lawyer appearing in the proceeding whom he believed to be junior describing himself as ‘Senior Counsel’.
According to Jonas, he consequently investigated and discovered that Granger had announced the appointments of Ali, Bacchus, Forde and Moore.
In 2019, the Granger-led A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) coalition had allegations levelled against it that it had recalled the bestowing of Senior Counsel status on Jonas because of his political affiliation.
On Christmas Eve in 2018, Chief of Protocol at the Ministry of the Presidency, Vic Persaud, contacted Jonas at his home to inform him that upon the judges’ recommendation, he was being appointed SC and that in the coming days, he would receive his documentation and invitation to the ceremony.
The following day, Stabroek News published a story about the formation of a new political party—A New and United Guyana (ANUG) to which Jonas is affiliated. Five days later, Persaud informed Jonas that the Executive had reconsidered the decision.
A few days later, the Ministry of the Presidency announced five new SC. Jonas’ name was not included.
