Chancellor did not recommend Rabi Sukul

Feb 20, 2014 News

…says JSC methodology in vetting him not up for discussion

With each passing day, the emerging details surrounding the appointment and forced resignation of Court of Appeal Judge, Rabi Sukul, takes a new turn as this publication has been told that Chancellor of the Judiciary, Carl Singh, did not recommend him.
Asked yesterday about the debacle, Justice Singh, told reporters, “I did not recommend him,” but rather was part of a commission that considered his application to the post.

Chancellor of the Judiciary, Carl Singh

Justice Singh was also asked about the sort of ‘due diligence’ undertaken when his application was vetted. He responded that this is a matter that engaged the Judicial Service Commission.
He did point out that the methodology used in identifying Sukul’s nomination to be sent to the President would not be up for discussion.
Justice Singh yesterday confirmed that Sukul tendered his resignation.
Asked why a constitutional recourse was not employed to remove Sukul as an Appellate Court Judge, Justice Singh said that Sukul had recognized that something irregular had taken place.
According to the Chancellor, when Sukul admitted to the disbarment, he asked him to resign.
Justice Singh said that Sukul, as a Judge, recognized that something irregular had taken place in the form of his disbarment and as such tendered his resignation when asked.
In face of the mounting criticism of his appointment, Sukul on Tuesday sought to defend his appointment saying that he was not given the job through any government connection and further he “was and remain fully eligible for the post.”
According to Sukul, he applied for a judicial position in November 2011 and it was not until July 2013 that he was appointed.
“I had to wait for a year and seven months before a decision was made to appoint me to the Bench… I was, and remain fully eligible for the post to which I was appointed.”
Sukul, in his defence, said after President Donald Ramotar swore him in, “I have not seen the good gentleman to this day…I have not spoken to his Excellency to this day. I do not know him personally.”
Sukul said that when he received the devastating news of his disbarment, he requested and was granted leave to return to the United Kingdom where he has since commenced the preparations to “fight this debilitating injustice to the bitter end.”
Sukul insists that at the time of his application for a judicial position in Guyana there was no complaint outstanding against him for any reason whatsoever.
“I had been in undisturbed professional practice as a defence Barrister in London for a quarter of a century.”
He said that during that time, save and except for the current allegations against him, the Bar Council of England and Wales has never found him liable for any professional misconduct.
“I was fully eligible for consideration to the post to which I was appointed.”
He noted, too, that the Chief Justice (ag), Ian Chang, was a member of the Judicial Service Commission Panel that interviewed him.
“He asked me one question only…How old are you? The records of the meeting can speak if need be.”
He said that it was five months after he applied for the position of Appellate Court Judge, that he drafted the documents that have since landed him in hot water.