Justice Holder’s request for an apology from the AG is infamy

Apr 28, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The Attorney General is the custodian and guardian of our national patrimony (both land and chattle assets, excepting where statute e.g the lands Department Act Cap 59:01; State Lands Act Cap 62:01 vests such custodianship in the President). Anil Nandlall knows this. Or, he ought to know. He was the AG during the Ramotar presidency. And yet, from that former AG there has been a repertoire of angst against the (incumbent) Attorney General, Basil Williams, S.C – inter alia from allegations about death threats to a judge; to now, a $125M libel action, that begs the question: why? Be that as it may, I argue for a shift of focus; to President Granger and the Executive power of Pardon; and the Attorney General’s proactivity or activism (or lack of) as regards his constitutional role and duty as custodian of our national patrimony (State’s assets).
First, here are my arguments in justification of a pardon. The “Attorney General of Guyana who shall be the principal legal adviser to the government of Guyana…” (article 112 of the Constitution) is threatened by Justice Holder with non-access to his court. The public is well aware of this standoff; a constitutional crisis is in gestation. In a previous letter (“The AG is not guilty of contempt”, Monday, April 3, 2017) I warned of the engendering of a “constitutional crisis” and posited that “the Indians are circling the wagon,” (using an American historical metaphor) (see also a serialized publication by Kaieteur News under Captions – “was the judge unfair to the Attorney General” – “Tuesday April 04; “An Attorney General must be shown and given respect by the Bench” – Wednesday April 05; and “Anil Nandlall is scandalizing the Attorney General” – Saturday, April 08).
Ralph Ramkarran, SC. has now veiled manner written of “… a penalty as severe as disbarment” – “Drama in court” SN, Sunday, April 02; Dr. Luncheon too is circling the wagon (“Luncheon on the politics of the APNU+AFC government” – KN Thursday 13; “Double standards” – SN April 13). And of course, circling too are the Joshua Singhs (KN, Tuesday, April 18 under caption “An Appeal to President Granger for a Cabinet reshuffle”) The prime target is, of course, the Attorney General.
So, you may wonder why the President has not invoked his presidential power of pardon to abort this unwanted constitutional crisis that is in gestation. It cannot be in the public interest for it to come to full term and delivery (to use a medical analogy). This has nothing to do with independence of the judiciary. Independence of the Judiciary is no license for judicial overreach. And besides, the Constitution itself gives the power to be used at any point in the process: prior DURING or after judicial process.
Mr. President you are aware of Justice Holder’s infamous demand for an apology. So, I say with humility to President Granger: Mr. President be like Portia, dispense Portian justice, (as in Shakespeare’s – The Merchant of Venice), render that demand nugatory; grant the Attorney General of Guyana a free PARDON. Frustrate the Shyloks. Mr President, here is your authority: Article 188(1)(a) provides “The President may grant to any person concerned in… any offence under the law of Guyana, a pardon, either free or subject to lawful conditions”. A pardon here would not amount to some tacit admission of guilt of the offence of contempt.
The words “concerned in” embraces situations, as the present one, of there being no charge, but yet imputation, and insinuations and the like of an offence from the Judge’s demand; and of course the mischief of the Joshua Singhs in inciting disrepute for the Attorney General. The infamy of an apology (I will shortly explain this infamy) hangs over the Attorney General’s head like the sword of Damocles.
Here is my explanation of the infamy. It serves to enhance the justification for a pardon. The full text of Justice Holder’s demand for an apology is now public knowledge. It is quoted in Ralph Ramkarran’s column “Drama in Court”. In the judges words: “I am not prepared to sit and hear Mr. Williams as an Attorney – at – law in any matter whatsoever, unless he makes a genuine and meaningful apology to my satisfaction, in open court, both to me and to members of the bar since they too were scandalized by his despicable conduct” (emphasis all mine).
This is infamy. This is nothing but naked judicial bullyism. And, against an Attorney General. What has he done to deserve this ignominy of remorse by apology under duress? And besides, is an Attorney General just a mere “Attorney – at – law”? Not at all. He is sui generis. And by, “members of the Bar”, I take the Judge to mean (as he only could have meant) those Junior Counsels present in court during that business session, most notably among them, Anil Nandlall who, with an accustomed degree of belligerence, is an unrelenting confessed public nemesis of the Attorney General!
Such an apology appears to me, to be appeasing, an unapologetic junior Counsel – Anil Nandlall. Has this junior Counsel been demanded by the Judge to issue an open court apology to the Attorney General, as head of the Bar, for his notorious public “despicable” allegations made against the Attorney General. No. But, that is not all. You may wonder: is the true constitutional significance and status of an Attorney General beyond comprehension of this Judge?
Maxwell E. Edwards
Attorney-at-Law

---

---