The Guyana Association of Women Lawyers (GAWL) yesterday strongly condemned an attack by Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC on a member of the magistracy but he yesterday defended his right to criticise her ruling.
In a statement, the GAWL said its focus is premised on its motto “Women supporting justice and equality” and as such it felt compelled to address any attacks on the members of the Judiciary.
It said that it has noted comments in the media made by the Attorney General regarding a ruling in a matter made by Magistrate Leron Daly.
“GAWL takes this opportunity to remind members of the public that the members of the Judiciary should be allowed to independently perform their functions. Consequently, any disparaging remarks or attacks, whether personal or otherwise, may expose Judicial officers and their offices to ridicule. Further, the statements which have been published and communicated through various media platforms, widen the scope of the attention of the negative comments.
“The GAWL reiterates and unreservedly denounces these attacks and asks that persons cease from peddling, broadcasting, transmitting or in any way disseminating such information that may lower public confidence in Judicial officers and the Judiciary. While there is a right to free speech, these expressions must be within the parameters of the law and with regard to their contextual implications. The rule of law is the backbone of our society and as such respect should be accorded to those who in the exercise of their duty try to maintain the rule of law”, the association said.
The GAWL urged all persons to be prudent and respectful to the judiciary and all other professionals who are functioning in the course of duty.
Nandlall had criticised Magistrate Daly’s decision in a case which saw former Finance Minister Winston Jordan being cleared of a charge of misconduct in public office. In a statement he issued the AG did not name the magistrate.
He charged that a precedent existed in a decision by the acting Chief Justice which would have secured the prosecution’s case.
Yesterday in a statement responding to the GAWL, the Attorney General defended his right to criticise.
“The basis of my criticism is the learned Magistrate omitted to follow a decision of the Hon. Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George SC by which she is bound by the principle of State Decisis and the Doctrine of Precedent. This written ruling of the Hon. Chief Justice was submitted to the learned Magistrate and it contained a decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Guyana’s apex court, on the very issue.
“In short, the learned Magistrate chose to ignore the decisions of both the Hon. Chief Justice and the CCJ by which she is bound. It is this omission to which I pointed and described as an “elementary egregious error”. I resolutely maintain that I am entitled to express such a view and that the same falls within the bounds of permissible criticism countenanced by law”, he said.
He noted that the GAWL statement referred to “disparaging remarks” and “attacks” to describe his comments. However, he said that the statement failed to identify the words or phrases, adding that he did no such thing.
“Lord Atkin, in the course of his judgment, in the case of Ambard v The Attorney General [1936] UKPC 16 posited thus:
`But whether the authority and position of an individual Judge or the due administration of justice is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising in good faith in private or public the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men.’
Nearly a century later, he said that this judicial pronouncement has lost neither its legal efficacy nor accuracy.
“I acted in good faith and not maliciously; did not attribute any improper motives; neither did I impair the administration of justice; and nothing contained in my statement can establish any of the foregoing”, he said.
He added that the GAWL statement also insinuated that his statement “may lower public confidence in Judicial Officers and the Judiciary”. Paradoxically, he said that these are the very sentiments which inspired his statement and to which express reference was made therein.
“I close by reminding of the legal guidance of Lord Denning in R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1968] 2 QB 150 `it is the right of every man in Parliament or out of it, in the Press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken and our decisions erroneous whether they are subject to appeal or not … we must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.’ I rest”.
