Justice Brassington Reynolds has adjourned the proceedings into President Bharrat Jagdeo’s libel case against embattled columnist Freddie Kissoon and the Kaieteur News, following a consensual decision to proceed on his long-overdue leave.
The decision was agreed to in principle by lead attorney for the plaintiff, Anil Nandlall, and lead defence counsel Nigel Hughes on Thursday at the Supreme Court, after proceedings continued into the libel case.
The case has been slated to recommence in the High Court after the court break on December 1 at 13:30h.
Anil Nandlall
The decision to adjourn the proceedings was made also because it was recognised that the case would not be wrapped up anytime soon, and most of the parties involved had other pressing commitments to tend to during the upcoming election season.
Thursday’s proceeding got underway with the continuation of the lengthy re-examination process, which saw an ever focused Nandlall taking a closer look at the context and line of questions of the defence in his attempt to deconstruct the defence contention that the president is “an ideological racist”. The defendant had, in essence, made this allegation in several of his Kaieteur News’ columns.
Nandlall spent most of his time asking the chief witness – head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon – to clarify who makes appointments to several high level state and constitutional offices and commissions.
“The defence had asked questions which sought to cast the impression that it was President Jagdeo or his Cabinet, for which he is chairman, which appointed persons to these entities.
“They had presented a list of several of the holders of these offices under his tenure, who are predominantly Indians,” Nandlall commented after the court proceedings.
Nandlall argued that the president had not made any of those appointments without consulting the relevant stakeholders, as provided for in the Constitution and laws of Guyana.
However, Nandlall was met with some opposition from Justice Reynolds, who did not believe that some of his questions should be allowed during the re- examination period, either because of their construction or because of their relevance.
As Dr Luncheon responded to questions about individuals, the offices they occupy and the process by which they were appointed, it was found that Jagdeo and his Cabinet had no involvement in making the respective appointments.
Dr Luncheon told the court that appointments which Jagdeo or his Cabinet did not make include those of the current Chairperson of the Teaching Service Commission, Leila Ramson; Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Dr Ganga Persaud; Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority, Khurshid Sattaur; head of the National Communications Network, Mohammed Sattaur; Chief Magistrate, Priya Sewnarine-Beharry; Chief Executive Officer of the Guyana Office for Investment (GO-Invest), Desmond Mohammed; and Director General of the Civil Aviation Authority, Zulfikar Mohammed.
Nandlall also argued that the questions the defence had put to Dr Luncheon were riddled with inaccuracies, legal and otherwise. He said that the plaintiff had appointed and confirmed the two directors of public prosecutions who were appointed during his tenure. These are Dennis Hanoman- Singh and Shamilar Ali- Hack.
Nandlall said that during the re-examination period, Dr Luncheon had made it clear that Jagdeo never appointed Hanoman- Singh, and he informed the court that it was the former President, Mrs Janet Jagan, who had appointed and confirmed Hanoman- Singh as DPP. He added that Jagdeo did not appoint the current DPP, Shamilar Ali- Hack; pointing out that the constitution clearly states that the power to make this appointment lies in the hands of the Judicial Services Commission, which is headed by Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Carl Singh.
Nandlall had accused defence counsel Nigel Hughes of not understanding the constitution, and of attempting to mislead the court and the Guyanese public by providing false information as part of his questions.
He also provided the judge with a copy of the Constitution of Guyana, which states in Article 199 that the power to appoint a DPP after the constitutional reforms now lie with the Judicial Services Commission.
He also requested that the judge take note of the information, and either have the inaccuracies struck from the record or nullified via the judge in his notes for public benefit.
