Attorney General- Justice Holder Saga…Chancellor (ag) orders continuation of Carvil Duncan trial before Justice Holder

May 05, 2017 News

---

Despite the unresolved feud between Attorney General (AG) and the Minister of Legal Affairs

Basil Williams and Justice Franklyn Holder a date has been set for a continuation of the Carvil Duncan trial at the High Court.
According to information disseminated from the office of the Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Yonette Cummings- Edwards, the case has been set for continuation on Monday, before Justice Holder.
The statement which was released yesterday comes months after a verbal dispute ensued between the AG and Justice Holder during a hearing into the legal challenge by Carvil Duncan over the tribunal, which was established to determine his removal from a number of State boards.
Justice Holder filed an official report with the Chancellor, outlining what he termed as egregious and offensive behaviour on the part of the AG. The Judge, therefore, demanded an apology from Williams.
However, the AG, on the other hand, refused to apologise. He instead asked that the Judge recuse himself from the Carvil Duncan matter.
The statement from the Chancellor yesterday, outlined the facts relating to the issue involving Williams and Justice Holder.
Justice Holder‘s letter was forwarded by Chancellor to Williams for his information, response and guidance, “but to date, Williams has not directly responded to the letter.”
Additionally, the release clarified that since Mr Williams holds the executive positions of Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, a copy of Justice Holder’s letter was sent to the Head of State, purely as a matter of information and courtesy.
“No complaint was made to his Excellency,” it emphasised.

In the meantime, Williams continues to deny the contention of Justice Holder. In a letter to President David Granger, last month, the Attorney General contended that the Judge could not lawfully, almost two days after the incident in court, and by letter, purport to raise accusations of contempt against him for what he alleged occurred in his Court previously.
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. Williams emphasised 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, emphasised that “Justice Holder did not inform, warn or in any manner convey that he considered he was being contemptuous before he left the courtroom that day and was, therefore, functus officio.” It is, however, Williams’ 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.”
He essentially requested that the Judge recuse himself from presiding over the case.

---

---