Attorney General denies Judge Holder’s contentions

Apr 23, 2017 News

---

-wants him to recuse himself from Carvil Duncan case

Not only has he categorically denied the purported contentions of Justice Franklyn Holder,

but Attorney General, Basil Williams, has asserted that it simply wasn’t legally possible for the judge to hold him in contempt belatedly.
This was contained in a letter by the Attorney General to President David Granger who had earlier asked Williams to respond to the allegations made against him by Justice Holder.
President David Granger had asked Williams for an explanation regarding reports that during an ongoing trial involving Carvil Duncan, he (Williams) allegedly made death threats against Justice Holder in the judge’s courtroom.
It is alleged that during cross examination of the confidential secretary to Duncan, Williams asked Justice Holder if a response that was given by the witness was properly recorded. The Judge took umbrage to Williams’ enquiry and reminded the AG that he was in charge of the courtroom and not Williams.
Reports had circulated that the AG then said that a classmate who was then a Magistrate that cited him for contempt some years ago is now incidentally dead.
Justice Holder in his complaint [sent to the Chancellor of the Judiciary] regarding the matter said that he felt disrespected by the Attorney General’s behaviour.
But according to Williams in his lengthy response to the President, Justice Holder could not lawfully, almost two days later by letter, purport to raise accusations of contempt against him for what he alleges occurred in his Court previously.
Williams emphasized in his letter to the President that such a matter shouldn’t have even gained [the President’s] attention.
“I must inform your Excellency that recourse to your good self, from an alleged complaint of behaviour in a Court of Law on the part of an Attorney-at-Law, is unknown to our Jurisprudence,” highlighted Williams as he added “this is simply because from time immemorial, the common law has granted the power to a Judge presiding in a Court to cite and punish persons for contempt in the face of the Court.”
Williams further pointed out that in Guyana the common law principles of Contempt of Court have been reduced into law by Statute in 2010 namely the Contempt of Court Act Cap 5:05., Section 12.
This Act, he explained, provides for: “Where in the opinion of the Court a person has committed a contempt in the face of the Court, that is, in the presence or hearing of the Court, the Court may cause that person to be brought before it, either forthwith or at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, and shall – (a) inform him of the contempt with which he charged; (b) afford him an opportunity to put forward a defence to the charge; and (c) after hearing him in his defence and the evidence of any witness he may tender…”
Williams acknowledged that Contempt of Court is a criminal offence and added that Justice Holder was required under the provisions of the Act to inform him of the contempt with which he wished to charge him before the rising of the Court on the same day.
Williams moreover, emphasized that “Justice Holder did not inform, warn or in any manner convey that he considered he was being contemptuous before he left the Court room that day and was therefore functus officio.” It is, however, Williams’s belief that “this is exactly what Justice Holder has done.

Williams did not stop there. He also amplified that Article 144 (8) of the Constitution prescribes that “the conduct of a civil matter before a Judge to wit: 111- 144 (8) -Any Court…prescribed by law for the determination of the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent and impartial and…the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time.”
In fact he underscored that fairness under Article 144 (8) requires a Judge to give notice to the Attorney-at-Law in Court of any behaviour which is contemptuous, insulting, disrespectful and despicable in the face of the Court.
According to Williams, “On a proper perusal of his letter of Complaint, the Learned Judge purports to list seven instances which in his opinion amounted to contemptuous behaviour yet in not one of them informed the Attorney General he was close to committing contempt or warned him or in any manner giving him notice of misbehavior, or charged him for contempt.”
Williams has specifically denied seven aspects of the Judge’s complaint. These include: “In a rather loud and bellicose tone said I, the Judge must record the NO; Previously the witness had said yes and the Court chose not to make a record of this; I took umbrage to his tone and what he was insinuating, which was in effect the Court was being selective in recording the evidence; Mr. Williams in a truculent manner…; The last person who told him what he should not say was a Magistrate he is now dead; All morning Mr. Nandlall disrespecting you and you have not done anything about it; I could say what I want to say when I want to say it. I have always been like that.”
According to Williams, the truth of the matter is that at the time Justice Holder left his Court he was not accused by him of being contemptuous. Williams said that he only received the letter of complaint, “after Mr. Nandlall’s scandalizing of Justice Holder, the Court, and himself and also after the Attorney General’s press conference more than 24 hours later.”
“The Learned Judge found no fault with the Attorney General in his Court but, without informing him before hand and giving him an opportunity to respond, he purports to go behind his back to complain to the President in order to have the Attorney General dismissed,” complained Williams.
Moreover, he has submitted to the President that “there is no foundation upon which Justice Holder could erect those serious allegations and sanctions he has proposed in his letter of complaint.”
In his attempt to explain what transpired, Williams said that on the day in question [March 23, 2017] he was subjected to a most disgusting display or lack of respect by Mr. Anil Nandlall, the immediate past Attorney General, for the sanctity of the Court presided over by Justice Holder.
He informed that between the hours of 9:15 am to around 12:00 noon the he cross examined Mr. Carvil Duncan and his Confidential Secretary.
Throughout the entire session, Williams said that Nandlall interrupted the Court despite the pleas of Justice Holder for him to stop. Throughout the session, he said too, that Nandlall prompted the witnesses before they answered the questions posed by him forcing the latter to go into the well of the Court, a privilege of Senior Counsel, to block their line of vision.
“Not to be undone Mr. Nandlall resorted to throaty noises. Mr. Nandlall repeatedly hurled insults at the Hon. Attorney General throughout the session as the latter conducted the cross examination,” Williams added.
He continued, “On one occasion Justice Holder alerted the Hon. Attorney General to the fact that they had an uninterrupted 10-minute break because Mr. Nandlall was like a child playing with a toy, only this time the toy was a cell phone, the latter being forbidden in our Courts.”
But on the approach to 12:00 noon, Williams said that Judge Holder indicated he was about to adjourn for the day. It was at this juncture Williams said that he requested permission to ask a final question of the Confidential Secretary which was granted and asked. “Upon the answer of ‘No,’ to the question the Attorney General went back to his seat and as he turned to face the Court he saw Justice Holder about to leave the Bench.
The Attorney General inquired of Justice Holder “Ex Abundanti Cautela (out of abundant caution) if he could clarify whether the Witness’s answer of ‘No’ was recorded. Surprisingly, Justice Holder’s response was that, ‘Mr. Williams you are not in control of my Court’,” Williams revealed.
Williams explained that while he agreed he did note in a controversial tone that it was Nandlall who had been seeking to control the court the entire morning.
But according to Williams, “Justice Holder then said he understood the Hon. Attorney General to be saying that he deliberately did not record the answer ‘Yes’ earlier and he took great umbrage at that.
“The Hon. Attorney General denied saying that such a belief would not be on his record since he did not say that nor did he intend that contention.”
He said that in his attempt to assure the Judge of this he referred to a case years ago where a Magistrate made a similar accusation when he was before him “claiming that when the Hon. Attorney General said he never failed a subject at law school he understood he was saying that he the Magistrate had failed subjects.”
“The Hon. Attorney General said the Magistrate [then] cited him for contempt and since then he has been very careful with his submissions to the Court lest there be a recurrence,” said Williams who claimed that he went on to add that “incidentally the Magistrate is dead now, to let the Learned Judge know that he was not someone who is still in the system.”
Williams said that he, in a reassuring tone told the Learned Judge that he knew him and if he had wanted to say what the Judge contended he would have done so.
According to Williams, “This engagement took no more than three-five minutes and ended when Mr. Nandlall made another interruption and Justice Holder left the Bench. At no time was the Hon. Attorney General disrespectful, insulting or contemptuous of Justice Holder.”
He asserted that “at no time during that short engagement did the Learned Judge accuse him of threatening him, or threatening to kill him nor has he in his letter of complaint expressed that view.”
Williams assured the President that he was never contemptuous of the Court and if he was they would have informed, warned, cautioned, cited and charged him accordingly. He went on to point out that “Justice Holder has the distinction of being the first Judge in the 50 years of our Independence to make orders against both the President and Prime Minister of Guyana in one fell swoop, without giving them a hearing. Therefore Justice Holder could not have fled the Bench because of the Hon. Attorney General, an appointee of the President.”
Williams said that there is no substratum to support an apology as sought by Justice Holder since this would be in breach of Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act.
Williams insisted moreover insisted that the unsupported allegations of both Justice Holder and Nandlall severally, have brought him into public odium and contempt and he has suffered in the estimation of the right thinking members of society.
“I have made efforts through mediators to seek to meet with the Learned Judge to resolve any misapprehensions he might be harbouring, but without success,” said Williams.
Regarding the continuance of the Carvil Duncan case, Williams has recommended that Justice Holder recuse himself and sends the matter back to the Chief Justice for re-assignment. Further he recommended that “the hearing of this matter should be conducted in a courtroom where there is a Voice Verbatim Digital Sound Recording System or any other contemporaneous recording to avoid the ‘last bastion of a lawyer’s servitude’ before our Courts.”
According to Williams, “I believe that enough damage has been done to me personally and my reputation and the administration of Justice to detail a rebuttal of the issues raised in the event your Excellency remits this letter to the Chancellor and the tendentious issues lead to unnecessary angst.”

---

---