Lawyers continue arguments over jurisdiction in Red House matter

Mar 05, 2017 News

---

Responding to arguments presented by Attorney General, Basil Williams, over the issue of

jurisdiction in the Red House court case, Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall has said that full and frank disclosures have absolutely nothing to do with the authority of the Court to proceed with the matter.
Contrary to arguments presented by the AG, last week, Nandlall contended that according Article 153 of the Constitution, the High Court has the right to hear and rule on a legal challenge by the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre Incorporated (CJRCI).
Last week, the Attorney General had submitted points on the matter of jurisdiction of the court in hearing the matter for which the PPP/C filed action in the High Court to bar the revocation of a lease and the removal of artifacts from Red House, a national heritage site, last December.
The move came after President David Granger ordered that the lease to the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre Incorporated (CJRCI) be revoked and that the occupants vacate the property by December 31, 2016.
The Red House lease was granted by the then PPP/C government to Cheddi Jagan Research Centre Incorporated (CJRCI), a company formed by the members of the same party.
However according to information obtained by the current government, on March 30, 2012 the Red House lease agreement was initiated without the approval of either the President of the day or The National Trust of Guyana, in contravention of Section 10 of the Lands Department Act Chapter 59:01.
The Attorney General, (AG) had submitted that the Court’s first duty is to determine whether it had jurisdiction to proceed to hear the matter.
Williams contended that the Chief Justice had no Jurisdiction to proceed with the matter for a number of reasons.
One of the reasons the AG contended is that an applicant for the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre

Inc. (CJRCI), who goes ex parte to the Court, has a duty to be candid with the Court and make full and frank disclosures of material facts within his knowledge.
He said that failure to do so entitles the Court to discharge any order made and refuse to deal with the merits of the matter.
The Attorney General had therefore submitted that the Applicant, the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre Inc. (CJRCI) failed to make full and frank disclosures of material facts in its Ex Parte Application by way of Affidavit for Conservatory Orders when it concealed from the Court that President Ramotar sanctioned/approved the lease in 2012. However, when the matter came up at the Georgetown High Court on Thursday, Nandlall argued if the Court has no jurisdiction, then the Court can do nothing about failure to make a full and frank disclosure since it has no jurisdiction to do so.
“This contention of the Attorney General is as deeply flawed as it is illogical and self-defeating,” he opined.
“In any event, the entire lease was annexed to the Ex-Parte Application by way of Affidavit and therefore every aspect of it is part of the Application itself. It is therefore inconceivable how any rational mind can argue that any part of this lease was not disclosed to or withheld from this Honourable Court.
“Moreover, the principle and rationale underpinning the concept of material non-disclosure relates to some advantage that an Applicant derives by misleading a Court into granting him some order, ex-parte, because certain facts were deliberately withheld from the Court, “ Nandlall added.
The test, he said, is whether the facts fully and frankly disclosed to the Court, the Court would have made the order that it made”.
“If the Court would not have done so, but for the non-disclosure, the Court would then vacate the Order because of the no disclosure.”
The Attorney General had also contended that the proceedings challenge the actions of the President and that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings.
In response Nandlall said, “The contention is as flawed, misconceived and erroneous as every other submission of the Attorney General. The Applicant/Plaintiff bases his case on announcement emanating from the government information system that the President has instructed that the Lease be revoked.”
Nandlall therefore stressed that there is no evidence before this Court that there has been any such revocation other than the unproven statement of the Attorney General.
It will be hopelessly wrong for the Court to accept that as revocation of the Lease. The revocation must be done in writing.
“No such document has been served on my client. In any event, the President is not the landlord; neither is he a party to the Lease. Therefore, I cannot conceive how the President can revoke the Lease. The Commissioner of Lands and Surveys is the landlord on behalf of the Government of Guyana.”
Certainly, the lawyer said the President is not a party to these proceedings.
“However, it is expected that at some point in time that the President’s instructions will be carried out by the appropriate lawful authority. It is this likelihood that permits the Applicant/Plaintiff to launch these proceedings and gives the Court a jurisdiction to grant reliefs as per Article 153 of the Constitution.” he added.

>>>>>>>
Pic saved Nandlall in Sunday
Caption:

Pic saved as Williams in Sunday
Caption: Attorney General Basil Williams

---

---