Dear Sir,

KINDLY permit me to make some comments on the recent situation involving a sitting judge of the High Court and the country’s  Attorney General. It would seem that the lawyer’s detractors are calling for his career to end or for him to be stripped of or relieved of his position, or for imprisonment or other dire punishments.

In actual fact though, on a more careful and complete analysis of the facts so far presented it would seem however, that it is the judge who may have disqualified himself from continuing and/or remaining as a judicial functionary, in service to the people of this country.

Just an analysis of some key issues will make the case for this disquieting fact. Of course, there are others.

In the first place, there was this statement by the judge,

”…I am not prepared to sit to hear Mr Williams as an Attorney-at-Law in any matter whatsoever…”

On the facts however, Mr Williams was not appearing in his private capacity in the matter on the day in question. Instead, Mr Williams was appearing as the Attorney General representing the business of the people of Guyana, in that court.

Is the judge really saying that the people of Guyana can no longer attend before him to have matters adjudicated, despite the fact that the taxpayers are paying the judge a salary of possibly more than one million dollars per month?

That is a pretty strong position for any judicial functionary to take and should not be taken lightly.

Secondly, the issue of the judge’s letter to the chancellor being made available somehow to the press.

This is the issue of breach of confidentiality in so many respects, and goes to the confidentiality of even pending matters before this particular judicial functionary.

It goes without saying that this matter is extremely serious and gives rise to the issue of confidentiality even higher up.

The third relates to the subject matter of the letter written by the judicial functionary.

It is reproduced as follows, with some modifications.

”RE: REPORT ON CONTEMPTUOUS BEHAVIOUR OF MR B W SC.”

The letter calls itself a ”report.”

This begs the question of ”Report on what?”

On the facts, it could be asked, was there any investigation into the incident? Were there any statements taken or confrontations held?

On these facts, it would seem that the judicial functionary already has a very fixed mindset, and one that might be very dangerous for any matters involving the country’s Attorney General to continue to be placed before him, apologies or NOT.

A more fitting subject matter would have been to say, ” Re: Incident occurring in my court on such a date and at such a time.”

One thing is clear. The Attorney General seemed to have been generally dis-satisfied with the court proceeding, on the day in question, and the judge himself seemed to have been aware of this fact, to the point where reports are coming out that he felt ”threatened” and in fear of his life.

On the issue of whether or not there was any ”threat to kill,” it must be first established that the lawyer was known to have killed someone, and this must be established as a ”notorious fact.” Otherwise the mere utterings of a lawyer amount to nothing more than ”mouthing off”, and any experienced judicial officer would have recognised it for being just that.

On the question of what an experienced judicial officer would have done, if matters were escalating into a brawl or unpleasantness, then the wise and prudent course would have been to adjourn the matter and invite the brawling participants into chambers.

After all, if a judicial functionary CANNOT settle disputes in his or her own court, then what is the purpose of that person continuing as a ”judicial functionary”?

The way forward in the present dispute is for there to be no more written statements, EXCEPT FOR ONE. The one that states that this matter is settled.

Outside of this then one of the lawyers should lose his position, and it should NOT be the country’s Attorney General.

Yours Faithfully.
Juliet Holder-Allen
Attorney at Law.