Absence of effective Judicial Review Act stymies Court process

Absence of effective Judicial Review Act stymies Court process — Bar Association

Jun 01, 2018 News

The Guyana Bar Association has said that the absence of an operational Judicial Review Act (JRA) stymies a vital area of law and has resulted in a number of procedural hurdles.
In welcoming the recent decision of the Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George, the Bar Council of the Bar Association of Guyana noted that the implementation of the Act fills a gap in the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) launched in 2016.
Several procedural remedies for the CPR 2016 are contained in the Judicial Review Act. In this regard, the Bar Association noted that in the absence of this Act, litigation in this vital area of the law has been stymied and fraught with a number of procedural hurdles, some of which were laid bare in the recent CCJ ruling in the case of The Medical Council of Guyana v Jose Ocampo Trueba.

Attorney General Basil Williams

In challenging the Medical Council’s refusal of his application for full registration, Dr. Ocampo filed an application for judicial review in the High Court. According to the CCJ, Judicial review is a court proceeding where a judge assesses the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
In the ruling, the CCJ declared that prerogative remedies outlined that the Crown Office Rules of 1906 were no longer available in Guyana and that the Civil Procedure Rules 2016 should be applied to all civil proceedings. In a case where a public officer/authority is challenged, the Judicial Review Act and the CPR are both necessities.
Further outlining their concerns, the Bar Council noted that the issue of the implementation of the Act was previously raised with the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams S.C.
The Council said that issue was raised at a meeting with the Attorney General on July 22, 2017 and by way of letter dated November 15, 2017, requesting the urgent implementation of the Judicial Review Act.
The Council therefore stressed that the implementation of the Judicial Review Act is of vital importance to good public administration in a democratic society, allowing citizens ample remedies against the State and leveling the playing field.
“The Bar Council says that it looks forward to the speedy implementation of the Act.
Last Monday, the Chief Justice issued a ruling which ultimately compels the Attorney General to bring into effect the Judicial Review Act.
The JRA which was passed in Parliament in 2010 makes provision for citizens to challenge actions of public authorities on the grounds that their actions are unlawful, illegal, and capricious, contrary to some written law, ultra vires or violate the rules of natural justice.
Under the Act, the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs is empowered to issue the publication of an order signed by him in the official Gazette to bring Judicial Review into operation.
Williams has however been accused of refusing to bring the act into effect. His action resulted in a Court action taken by former Attorney General Anil Nandlall.
In his arguments, Nandlall said that Judicial Review is that area of the law which guards against an abuse of power by any public officer, including ministers of government, any public authority or statutory tribunal.
Not bringing the Act into operation hinders members of the citizenry aggrieved by any such matters from effectively mounting a challenge in the Court.
According to Nandlall, the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) elaborately set out the procedure by which the remedies contained in the judicial review can be applied for in the court.
Nandlall had applied for an Order Nisi of Mandamus to compel Williams to bring into operation the Judicial Review Act of 2010.
The order was made absolute by the Chief Justice. In her ruling, Justice George directed the Minister of Legal Affairs to bring the Judicial Review Act into force by July 31, 2018.
Williams has since issued a statement questioning the Court’s authority to order him and has indicated his intention to appeal the decision.