Anil Nandlall
Attorney General Basil Williams’s point-blank refusal to apologise to a sitting judge for his courtroom behaviour which forced Justice Franklin Holder to leave the bench in protest is not going down well with observers.
According to his predecessor, Anil Nandlall, Williams’s obstinacy smacks of a continued disregard for the Judiciary and the concept of separation of powers. The Attorney-at-Law made it clear that he has never seen such conduct in his years of practice.
“(Williams) has demonstrated his utter disrespect and, indeed, has compounded his contempt for the Judiciary in refusing to apologise to Justice Franklin Holder for his egregious conduct in the courtroom,” Nandlall said in an interview on Sunday.
Basil Williams
Nandlall observed that in the letter Williams wrote to President David Granger, dated April 15, to ‘explain’ his conduct, Williams spoke in the third person by describing himself throughout the letter as the Honourable Attorney General. Nandlall stated that this was significant.
“In that letter, he continues to regurgitate several lines in relation to what transpired in the court, thereby disputing what the Judge’s record is. So he is compounding his disrespect by attempting to portray the Judge to be a liar. I have never seen this kind of conduct displayed towards the Judiciary,” Nandlall declared.
Separation of powers
Nandlall was also critical of Williams’s suggestion in his letter, that Justice Holder should recuse himself from hearing the Carvil Duncan case. Duncan is in a legal fight against his suspension as Chairman from the Public Service Commission (PSC).
And according to Nandlall, this suggestion does not take into account Duncan’s right to a speedy hearing. He stated that it would be unfair for the case to have to go before another Judge through no fault of Duncan, bearing in mind the already lengthy time spent in court.
“So Williams believes that he’s running the Judiciary, that he can dictate when Judges should hear a case. This is precisely why there’s a doctrine called the separation of powers, which makes the Judiciary independent from the Executive.”
“And the Executive cannot be seen to, in any way, be giving the Judiciary direction. Why should the Judge recuse himself because Williams is on an ego trip? This is utter madness,” Nandlall told this newspaper.
While Williams insisted in his letter that if he had been in contempt of court, the Judge had a duty to cite him before leaving the bench, Nandlall stated that this was not so. According to Nandlall, the contempt of court power resides with the Judge and thus can be exercised in the future.
“But I hope that the Judiciary will act in such a manner to maintain its own integrity and would not act in a manner that may bring the administration of justice into disrepute and allow the populace to lose confidence in the justice system. And that’s why Judges have the power of contempt; it is to protect the system that administers justice.”
“When the public loses confidence in the administration of justice, society will begin to disintegrate. And here you have the head of the Guyana Bar adopting a posture that can lead to loss of public confidence in the administration of justice; all because of his ego and idiosyncratic behaviour.”
The matter arose while Justice Holder was hearing the legal challenge filed by Duncan against the attempt to remove him from the chairmanship of the Public Service Commission on March 23. Conflicting reports arose from Nandlall, who was present, and Williams about what Williams did to cause Holder to walk off the bench.
The day after the incident, Justice Holder formally complained to the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary that he had abruptly walked out of the courtroom because of statements made by the Attorney General. He quoted the AG as saying, “I could say what I want to say and however I want to say it. I have always been like that.”
The High Court Judge said in his complaint that he felt disrespected by the Attorney General’s behaviour, and has called for an apology in open court.
However, Williams is holding out that he is not to be blamed for causing the High Court Judge to walk out of the courtroom. He has also insisted that his comment was not a threat.
President Granger had told reporters that he asked Williams to formally give a detailed explanation of what transpired. Granger is in receipt of Williams’ response.
Days after two media houses published Nandlall’s version of what transpired in the courtroom, Williams threatened lawsuits against the media houses. (Jarryl Bryan)
