Court Registrar challenges JSC allegation of disciplinary breaches

Jan 22, 2009 News

---

…matter taken before the court

 

Supreme Court Registrar Sita Ramlal has filed a court action against the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) after she was called upon by the entity to answer to several alleged breaches of discipline.

Justice Roxanne George-Wiltshire yesterday heard submissions by Ramlal’s legal team before rendering an order calling on the JSC and its members to show cause why its decision should not be quashed.

The JSC was seeking answers to Ramlal’s alleged unauthorized leave for approximately 33 days, from May 9, 2008 to June 10, 2008; her failure to report her resumption of duty to the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary thereafter; and her unauthorized departure from Guyana and absence therefrom for the period September 15, 2008 to September 25, 2008, and November 24, 2008 to December 5, 2008.

The Judge also ordered an order or rule nisi of Prohibition directed to the JSC and its members to show cause why it should not be prohibited from proceeding or further proceeding with a disciplinary hearing into the said allegations of breach of discipline against Ramlal.

These orders were sought on the grounds that the said decision and hearing would be unlawful, ultra vires or in excess of its jurisdiction, in breach of the rules of natural justice, null and void and of no legal effect.

Ramlal’s affidavit in support of the motion stated that she is a public officer and the Chief Executive Officer of the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature, a Department of Government.

It added that on May 6, 2008, she proceeded on leave of absence, approved by the Chancellor (ag), from May 6, 2008 to May 8, 2008, (inclusive) to be spent overseas.

According to the affidavit, while in the United States of America on such leave, Ramlal fell seriously ill and had to be hospitalized for 19 days, during which she underwent surgery.

It stated that the Office of the President was informed of her medical condition and predicament, and approved that she remains in the United States of America on extended leave of absence for as long as her medical condition demanded or necessitated.

The affidavit said that, on June 11, 2008, she resumed duties as Registrar of the Supreme Court and, by letter of even date, informed the Office of the President of her resumption of duty, and also attached thereto a medical certificate of her illness which had necessitated the grant of extended leave of absence.

According to the document, on the said day, she informed the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission of her resumption of duties by way of a letter through the Chief Justice.

“And I have reason to believe that the Chief Justice did forward that letter to the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission.”

It said that on August 4, 2008, she received from the Office of the President a copy of a letter sent by the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary to the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, in which the acting Chancellor had informed the Head of the Presidential Secretariat that he (the Head of the Presidential Secretariat) was not the proper person to whom she should have reported her resumption of duties, and that he (the acting Chancellor) had not been formally advised of her resumption of duties, and that until he was properly so advised, she was being considered as being absent without leave.

“On receipt of that letter, and upon reading its contents, on the 8th August, 2008, I informed the acting Chancellor, by way of letter, of the fact that His Excellency, the President of Guyana, had instructed that my resumption of duties should be reported to the Head of the Presidential Secretariat.”

The affidavit stated that Ramlal applied for, and obtained from the Office of the President, approval special leave, in September 2008 and in November 2008, for the purpose of medical check-ups and medical treatment overseas; and on resumption of her duties, she reported to the Office of the President.

According to the document, on or about December 10, 2008, Ramlal received from the Judicial Service Commission a letter informing her that the members of the Judicial Service Commission had agreed that she should appear before the said Commission to answer to her unauthorized leave, her failure to report resumption of duty to the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, and her unauthorized departure from Guyana and absence thereafter.

“I was requested to attend before the Judicial Service Commission, in the Conference Room of the Court of Appeal, on the 12th December, 2008, at 2pm. On the 11th December, 2008, out of deference to the constitutional status of the Judicial Service Commission, I responded to the said allegations of breaches of discipline levelled against me, by letter.”

The affidavit added that, on December 12, 2008, she attended before the said Commission, which was chaired by the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, as she was requested to do. “The hearing of the said allegations of breaches of discipline levelled against me by the said Commission was then adjourned to a future date, of which I would be informed, to enable me to obtain legal advice and legal representation.”

It also stated that at no time did the Judicial Service Commission inform Ramlal that any allegation of breach of discipline had been made against her by anyone, or afford her an opportunity of being heard as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against her in relation to any of the allegations of breach of discipline before the said Commission made its decision on the 26th November, 2008.

Ramlal contends that the Judicial Service Commission acted in error of law, and therefore without or in excess of jurisdiction, in taking the decision to call upon her to answer allegations of breach of discipline when it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Judiciary to grant to her leave of absence (to be spent within or outside Guyana) and when there is no legal duty upon me to report my resumption of duties to the Chancellor of the Judiciary.

“I am informed by my said Attorneys-at-Law, and do verily believe, that the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, as the virtual complainant and an interested party in all the allegations of breach of discipline levelled against me, cannot sit as a member and Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission, to hear the allegations of breaches of discipline which have been levelled against me, since he would be acting as Judge in his own causes.”

She also said in her affidavit that the Registrar of the Supreme Court is a Chief Executive Officer of a Government Department, and therefore, the Chancellor of the Judiciary, as the head of judicial officers of the state, has no administrative jurisdiction over the Registrar, a non judicial officer, in relation to the grant or refusal of leave of absence, and therefore the Registrar has no legal duty to obtain from the Chancellor leave of absence, or to report to the Chancellor her resumption of duties after such leave.

Ramlall is being represented by Messrs. Rex H McKay, S.C., Keith Massiah, S.C., Mr. Miles Fitzpatrick, S.C., Sase Narain, S.C., and Stephen Fraser.

Senior Counsel Massiah made submissions to the court yesterday.

 

---

---