WHAT IS THERE TO INVESTIGATE?

Feb 21, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

We have a propensity in this country to fan the flames of controversy, to nurse small sores into big abscesses which then ooze their poisonous pus into the body politic of the country. It is a most disgusting and dangerous practice, allowing for new controversies to be concocted out of nothing.
This propensity can at times be transformed into a theatre of the absurd, the most notable example of which is the ongoing questioning about due diligence in relation to the appointment of a Court of Appeal Justice who has since resigned after being disbarred in the United Kingdom.
It has been explained that when he first applied for the position of a Justice of the Court of Appeal, he had not yet drafted the grounds of appeal in the case that eventually caused him to be disbarred. Therefore when his application was received by the Judicial Service Commission, there was no hint of future disbarment.
When disbarment came it was handled in a professional manner by both the Chancellor and the concerned Justice. He was asked to resign and he did so. He has since provided a detailed explanation as to the genesis of his problems in the UK that triggered his disbarment. He has further indicated that his disbarment was not by the Court, but by an association that deals with such matters. He intends to appeal the decision in the Courts.
Despite the fact that he has resigned on the request of the Chancellor, there continue to be voices calling for an investigation into his appointment and questioning why instead of the Chancellor demanding the man’s resignation, the President did not order an investigation. In other words, why instead of resigning was he not fired.
It should be recalled that in 1989 a magistrate filed a complaint to the then Chancellor of the Judiciary indicating that a judge had approached her in relation to a case involving a relative of the judge.
Following this complaint, and in keeping with the provisions of Guyana’s Constitution, the Judicial Service Commission wrote to then President Desmond Hoyte asking that the charges of misconduct be investigated by a tribunal.
President Hoyte appointed the tribunal headed by a retired judge along with other senior counsel to investigate the allegations of misconduct leveled against the judge. The tribunal upheld the complaint. This led to the removal of the judge from office. In other words he was fired.
Apparently in the instance involving the Court of Appeal judge in Guyana who was recently disbarred in England, the argument is being made that instead of being asked to resign, the relevant authorities should have demanded that the President investigate the disbarment.
But why should this be done? And what is there to investigate. There has been a disbarment. There are no facts in dispute here. The Justice of the Appeal Court was asked to resign and he has done so. What is there for any tribunal to investigate? The man has not been accused of any offence in our jurisdiction, so how can the Judicial Service Commission establish a tribunal to investigate a matter in another jurisdiction. What is there to investigate?
There is no charge against the man. He has resigned because his disbarment has called his reputation into question and this was the basis of him stepping down so as to protect the image of the local judiciary. He has acted professionally in this regard. What is there is investigate?
How can any investigation change the status quo? What is the purpose of this ridiculous and absurd suggestion that there could have been an investigation instead of asking the man to resign?
You can only have an investigation in relation to misconduct within the jurisdiction if a complaint is filed and the person complained against refutes the allegation made in the complaint. In order to establish the truth of the complaint, an investigation has to be recommended, and it is for the President to appoint that tribunal.
The concerned individual has not disputed his disbarment in England. He has admitted to the fact and has stepped down. He has further indicated that since the disbarment is subject to an appeal he will be appealing the decision. He has also indicated that the disbarment has destroyed his life.
What more do the critics want? Do they wish to create a circus in this country in which an association, not a Court ,debars someone in one jurisdiction, and this becomes the basis for the Judicial Service Commission in another jurisdiction recommending to the President that a tribunal be established to determine whether there is any truth to the allegation?

Latest News

WHAT IS THERE TO INVESTIGATE?

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Battle for Glory: Petra-MVP Sports Girls U11 Football Championship...

Dinar Trading and Forrester’s Concrete solidify...

Linden vs. Georgetown rivalry takes centre stage...

Diamond Mineral Water Indoor Hockey Tournament...

Top athletes and officials recognized at 2023...

Guyana Beverages Inc. partners with GFF for Maid...

Features/Columnists

The Windfall Tax paradox

Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all

What sense third parties, then

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

WHAT IS THERE TO INVESTIGATE?

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]