Two Chief Justices presided at the same time in the High Court

Jun 06, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor;
Kindly permit me some space in your news column to give some legal advice to the sitting government of the day about something of very serious legal and national importance. I was given this link by a fellow lawyer of a news item published in the Demerara Waves Online news media. The issue relates to the President’s impending decision to pardon persons sentenced by the courts, and the non-disclosure of the details of this expected action.
There is no doubt in my mind that the public should be appraised of the details of this impending action, since this issue of ‘’Pardoning of offenders’’ by the President, seems to be creeping up as a matter of daily life in Guyana. From a strictly legal stand point, this issue of ‘’Pardoning of offenders’’, is not a legitimate process in the chain of events from the time of the commission of an offence, to the final determination of it through the judicial system. Guyana is a Republic. It is not a Kingdom.
There is no King, who has personal ‘’Residual’’ power to forgive offenders and to over ride the legal systems that imposed a criminal conviction on a private citizen. Guyana is a Republic and ALL persons hold their positions, under the state and at all levels, in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations governing those positions and appointments. The power to grant ‘’Legal Pardons’’ is a power granted under the Constitution of Guyana, and like all other powers granted under the law, it MUST BE EXERCISED REASONABLY.
In this context the word ‘’Reasonably’’, is a legal concept and is subject to judicial review by the courts. If the judicial review finds that the power is being abused, and therefore the exercise of it is ‘’unreasonable’’, then the entire action becomes unlawful. The place for the examination of the impending action is in the National Assembly, and if it cannot be done there, then I would submit that the people of Guyana will have a very serious problem. It is a very serious problem when the full implication of ‘’secret pardons’’, include Summary Jurisdiction Offences.
It is my considered legal opinion that a Government should stay away from interfering with judgments given by the courts in criminal matters involving the private citizens. Some judgments are given for ‘’peace’’, and interfering with those decisions could let lose chaos on the wider society. I do not expect the members of the government to understand or even care about these situations, since they all have state security etc., but for the wider society, some care should be shown. The safety of the ordinary people should ALWAYS be the first priority of any Government.
Those lawyers who are my friends will testify that my legal experience is equal to that of a Senior Counsel, and should be adhered to. In this regard the government could help by concentrating its efforts to providing a ‘’Strong Judiciary’’, to serve the people with confidence by the selection of men and women for judicial positions, who have distinguished themselves in the law, by their private practices and who have very outstanding monuments in the legal profession. That way person can know whose hands they can expect ‘’justice’’ from.
Instead, this government has shown that it has scant regard for the norms and good practices of the legal system by allowing two (2) Acting Chief Justices to sit as the same court, on the same afternoon and gave a decision that was against the Government’s own interest. It is straight law that when a new Acting Chief Justice was sworn in, Ian Chang’s commission as an Acting Chief Justice had come to an end.
With this level of confusion and more existing in the judicial administration, it would not be wise to add any further element of ‘’inconsistency’’, into the equation. The recent deaths of more than sixteen (16) prisoners on remand would require that ‘’caution’’ should be the watchword. And if anyone wants to question MY own credibility to make these observations and recommendations then I would say that there exists MORE than enough evidence of my RIGHT to do so. There exists in the law a legal concept known as a ‘’notorious fact’’.
It is a concept that exists in the law of evidence. This fact is so well known by anyone and everyone that it does not have to be proven any more. Any document emanating out of any court, or any judgment given by any court, in particular the Court of Appeal, is considered a ‘’notorious fact’’. It is a ‘’notorious fact’’ that one month after I was admitted to practice the law in Guyana, that I was given permission by three (3) judges of the Court of Appeal to appear before them, to present a brief in place of a lawyer who was senior to me, Mr. Frank Fraser.
Not only did I find approval for my arguments and won the Appeal, but I also received commendation for my performance from all three of the sitting judges, in a very strong court. The President of the Court was His Honour Justice Cecil Kennard, and the other two Appellate Judges were His Honour Mr. Maurice Churaman and Mr. Aubrey Bishop. The lawyers for the other side were also very learned and extremely competent, Mr. Robin Stoby S.C and Mr. Raj Poonai. My judicial career was dynamic and full of hard work and dedication to my country.
The fact that as a strong judicial officer, the Chief Magistrate of the country, my life was threatened in the discharge of my duties for doing what was right for the citizens, during very dangerous times in this country, is a ‘’notorious fact’’, as well. The threats and all of the attendant circumstances were reported in the World Press, The Associated Press (AP). There is no one in Guyana who should now say that they do not know anything about it. I walked away from my judicial career. However, my concern will always be with properly working systems in the judiciary that could make my country a safer place.
Juliet Holder-Allen
Attorney-at-Law

---

---