Judge wants AG to apologise
Attorney General Basil Williams
Attorney General Basil Williams

-Chancellor says judiciary will issue statement shortly

NEWLY appointed Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards, has

Justice Franklin Holder

acknowledged receipt of a letter of complaint by Justice Franklin Holder regarding an incident in the High Court last week involving Attorney General, Basil Williams.

Speaking to reporters following her swearing-in at State House on Tuesday, Justice Cummings-Edwards said the judiciary will soon issue a statement on the issue. She declined to comment further on the matter.
“An official report will be given to the media shortly as soon as everything is completed,” the Chancellor (ag) said.

The issue had come to the fore when Attorney-at-law, Anil Nandlall alleged that Williams had threatened to kill Justice Holder, causing the judge to walk off the bench last week Thursday during a court case involving Carvil Duncan. The Attorney General, who is also the country’s Legal Affairs Minister, had denied the allegation.
In a letter to Justice Cummings-Edwards, Justice Holder said he left the bench last week Thursday because of an alleged statement made by Williams, which is: “I could say what I want to say and however I want to say it, I have always been like that.” The judge said he found the statement to be egregious.

“Immediately after hearing these words, I rose from the bench and went into my chambers. I did not adjourn the matter, nor did I give any instructions to the parties,” Justice Holder mentioned in his letter of complaint.
His letter made no mention of any “threat”, and although he referenced Williams’ statement about a dead magistrate, Justice Holder did not describe it as a threat. He is however contending that he felt disrespected and that the Attorney General is in contempt of his court. He called for a genuine and meaningful apology by Williams in open court, saying that if this is not forthcoming he will not sit to hear him as an Attorney-at-law in any matter whatsoever.

Justice Holder’s account
Meanwhile, in his letter dated March 24, 2017 to Justice Cummings-Edwards, Justice Holder said during the cross-examination of the witness on March 23, Williams had asked a question, which he initially recorded as “yes.”

“However, because of what the witness said immediately after and Mr Williams’ desire to cross-examine her on a document which she had prepared and for which he was making application to have admitted into evidence, I crossed out the answer ‘yes,’” the Judge said.
According to the Judge, as the Attorney General went further into his cross- examination, he (Williams) made “certain statements which suggested that it was his belief, that the witness had said “yes” and that this was the record of the court.”

However, the Judge said on recognising “Mr Williams’ misconception of this part of the evidence, I then read aloud the record of the court in this regard. I further offered that he (Williams), may ask the witness the question again if he so desired, since the record showed that there was no answer to the questions. Mr Williams did not do so,” the Judge wrote.
Justice Holder continued that Williams proceeded to ask other questions of the witness, in answer to one of which, the witness said “no.”

According to Justice Holder, upon the witness saying this, Williams said, “I the judge must record “no.” I then said to him that a record is being made that the witness did say “no.”
Justice Holder said Williams followed up with words to the effect that previously the witness had said ‘yes’ and the court chose not to make a record of this.
“I then told Mr Williams that I took umbrage to his tone and what he was insinuating, which was in effect, that the court was being selective in recording the evidence.”
The Judge said Williams responded by saying that the last person who told him what he should not say was a Magistrate and he is now dead.

“He further said all morning Mr Nandlall disrespecting you and you have not done anything about it,” Holder wrote, adding that he told Williams that this was not a true statement of what had occurred.
“This was followed by a most egregious statement by Mr Williams, which is: “I could say what I want to say and when I want to say it, I have always been like that.”
It was at this point that the judge decided to leave the bench.
“Immediately after hearing these words, I rose from the bench and went into my chambers. I did not adjourn the matter, nor did I give any instructions to the parties,” Justice Holder clarified.

No threat
During a news conference last Friday, Williams in detailing what had transpired, said that he was cross-examining Duncan, who is being represented by Nandlall, and the latter kept interrupting the court. Williams, SC, said that when the Judge announced that he was about to adjourn the matter, he (Williams) made a request to ask a final question, which he was permitted to do. The AG said that after he had asked his final question of the confidential secretary of Duncan, since she was the one being cross-examined, he thanked her and proceeded to his seat.

He then stated that: “When I was about to sit, I saw the Judge was about to leave and I said ex abundanti cautela; out of excessive caution could I enquire [if] the answer ‘no’ was recorded. The Judge, to my surprise said, Mr. Williams you’re not in charge of my court.”
The AG related that the Judge then said that he interpreted what Williams said to mean that he [the Judge] did not record a previous answer given by the witness, and that he (the Judge) took great umbrage at that.

Williams, SC, said he then shared an experience which had happened years ago, when a magistrate presiding over a matter in which he was involved, had interpreted something he said, differently. He said that since then he has been “particular” about what he says in court and “incidentally, that magistrate is dead now.”

He noted that after this, he continued his conversation with Justice Holder, after which Nandlall “jumped in as though he was under the influence of something” and the Judge left the bench. The AG said that his view is that the Judge had intended to leave, but he (Williams) had detained him by asking another question. He said that no date was given by the Judge for a continuation of the hearing, as he has the option of sending notices to counsel about new dates.

Judy Stuart-Adonis, Senior Legal Advisor, who was in court during the incident in a statement seen by this newspaper said the AG was insistent in the inconsistencies of the witness being recorded after which he subsequently referenced a former Magistrate who also misconstrued him and that Magistrate is now deceased, meaning he/she is no longer a sitting Magistrate. Esther Sam, Principal Legal Adviser at the AG chambers, also gave a similar account.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.