April 15, 2017
His Excellency
President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana
Brigadier David Arthur Granger
Ministry of the Presidency
Vlissengen Road
Bourda,
Georgetown

Dear Mr. President,
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
I thank you for your letter of March 29, 2017 requesting a response to a report from Justice Holder in which he complained about my alleged behaviour in Court, transmitted by the Honourable Chancellor.
The following is my respectful response:-
I have read the complaint of His Honour Franklyn Holder contained in his letter dated March 24, 2017, and I specifically deny his contentions therein.
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.

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.
In Guyana, the common law principles of Contempt of Court have been reduced into our law by Statute in 2010 namely the Contempt of Court Act Cap 5:05. Section 12 provides:-
12 (1) 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…

Contempt of Court is a criminal offence and Justice Holder was required under the provisions of section 12 of the said act, to inform the Hon. Attorney General of the Contempt with which he wished to charge him before the rising of the Court on the same day.
Justice Holder did not inform, warn or in any manner convey to the Hon. Attorney General that he considered he was being contemptuous before he left the courtroom that day and was therefore functus officio.
Justice Holder could not lawfully almost two days later by letter purport to raise accusations of contempt against the Hon. Attorney General for what he alleges occurred in his Court previously.

But this is exactly what Justice Holder has done.
Further, Article 144 (8) of the constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana prescribes the conduct of a civil matter before a Judge to wit: –
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.
Fairness under Article 144 (8) requires a Judge to give notice to the Attorney-at-Law in Court of any behaviour which is contemptuous, insulting, disrespectful and despicable in the face of the Court.

On a proper perusal of his letter of Complaint, the Learned Judge purports to list seven instances which in his opinion amounted to contemptuous behavior, yet in not one of them informed the Hon. Attorney General he was close to committing contempt or warned him or in any manner giving him notice of misbehaviour, or charged him for contempt; the seven instances which are denied by the Hon Attorney General, are:-

– In a rather loud and bellicose tone said I, the Judge must record the NO;
– Previously the witness had said yes and the Court chose not to make a record of this;
– I took umbrage to his tone and what he was insinuating, which was in effect the Court was being selective in recording the evidence;
– Mr. Williams in a truculent manner…;
– The last person who told him what he should not say was a Magistrate, he is now dead;
– All morning Mr. Nandlall disrespecting you and you have not done anything about it;
– I could say what I want to say when I want to say it. I have always been like that.

The truth of the matter is that at the time Justice Holder left his Court, the Hon Attorney General was not accused by him of being contemptuous and it is to be noted that the Hon. Attorney General only received the letter of complaint after Mr. Nandlall’s scandalizing of Justice Holder, the Court, and himself and also after the Attorney General’s press conference more than 24 hours later.
The Learned Judge found no fault with the Attorney General in his Court but, without informing him before hand and giving him an opportunity to respond, he purports to go behind his back to complain to the President in order to have the Hon. Attorney General dismissed.

As a consequence, it is respectfully submitted that there is no foundation upon which Justice Holder could erect those serious allegations and sanctions he has proposed in his letter of complaint.
Excellency, on March 23, 2017, the Hon. Attorney General was subjected to a most disgusting display or lack of respect by Mr. Anil Nandlall for the sanctity of the Court presided over by Justice Holder.
Between the hours of 9:15 am to around 12:00 noon, the Hon Attorney General cross-examined Mr. Carvil Duncan and his Confidential Secretary.

Throughout the entire session, Mr. Nandlall interrupted the Court despite the pleas of Justice Holder for him to stop. Throughout the session he prompted the witnesses before they answered the questions posed by the Attorney General, forcing the latter to go into the well of the Court, a privilege of Senior Counsel, to block their line of vision. Not to be undone, Mr. Nandlall resorted to throaty noises. Mr. Nandlall repeatedly hurled insults at the Hon. Attorney General throughout the session as the latter conducted the cross-examination.
On one occasion, Justice Holder alerted the Hon. Attorney General to the fact that they had an uninterrupted 10-minute break, because Mr. Nandlall was like a child playing with a toy, only this time the toy was a cell phone, the latter being forbidden in our Courts.

On the approach to noon, the Learned Judge indicated he was about to adjourn for the day and the Hon. Attorney General requested permission to ask a final question of the Confidential Secretary, which was granted and asked.
Upon the answer of ‘No,’ to the question the Hon. Attorney General went back to his seat and as he turned to face the Court, he saw Justice Holder about to leave the Bench.
The Hon. Attorney General inquired of Justice Holder “Ex Abundanti Cautela (out of abundant caution) if he could clarify whether the Witness’s answer of ‘No’ was recorded.” Surprisingly, Justice Holder’s response was that, “Mr. Williams you are not in control of my Court.”
The Hon. Attorney General agreed, noting in a conversational tone that it was Mr. Nandlall who had been seeking to do that the entire morning.

Justice Holder then said he understood the Hon. Attorney General to be saying that he deliberately did not record the answer ‘Yes’ earlier and he took great umbrage at that.
The Hon. Attorney General denied, saying that such a belief would not be on his record since he did not say that nor did he intend that contention.
To assure the Learned Judge, the Hon. Attorney General referred to a case years ago where a Magistrate made a similar accusation when he was before him claiming that when the Hon. Attorney General said he never failed a subject at law school, he understood he was saying that he the Magistrate had failed subjects.

The Hon. Attorney General said the Magistrate cited him for contempt and since then he has been very careful with his submissions to the Court, lest there be a recurrence. The Hon. Attorney General then said incidentally, the Magistrate is dead now, to let the Learned Judge know that he was not someone who is still in the system.
The Hon. Attorney General in a reassuring tone told the Learned Judge that he knew him and if he had wanted to say what the Judge contended, he would have done so.
This engagement took no more than 3-5 minutes and ended when Mr. Nandlall made another interruption and Justice Holder left the Bench. At no time was the Hon. Attorney General disrespectful, insulting or contemptuous of Justice Holder.

The Hon. Attorney General wishes to assert that at no time during that short engagement did the Learned Judge accuse him of threatening him, or threatening to kill him, nor has he in his letter of complaint expressed that view.
The Hon. Attorney General respectfully assures your Excellency that he was never contemptuous of the Court and if he were, the Learned Judge would have informed, warned, cautioned, cited and charged him for contempt.
Justice Holder has the distinction of being the first Judge in the 50 years of our independence to make orders against both the President and Prime Minister of Guyana in one fell swoop, without giving them a hearing. Therefore Justice Holder could not have fled the Bench because of the Hon. Attorney General, an appointee of the President.

There is no substratum to support an apology and Justice Holder would be in breach of Section 12 aforesaid if he seeks one after the rising of the Court.
On the contrary, the unsupported allegations of both Justice Holder and Mr. Nandlall severally, have brought the Hon. Attorney General into public odium and contempt and he has suffered in the estimation of the right-thinking members of society.
I have made efforts through mediators to seek to meet with the Learned Judge to resolve any misapprehensions he might be harbouring, but without success.
Excellency, as to the future conduct of the case the question whether you and the Hon. Prime Minister could obtain an Article 144 (8) of our Constitution hearing, is paramount. The Hon. Attorney General humbly suggests that Justice Holder recuses himself and sends the matter back to the Chief Justice for re-assignment.

Moreover, the hearing of this matter should be conducted in a courtroom where there is a Voice Verbatim Digital Sound Recording System or any other contemporaneous recording to avoid the ‘last bastion of a lawyer’s servitude’ before our Courts.
I wish to reiterate to your Excellency my steadfastness in support of your Presidency and our cause to restore the rule of law and give to every Guyanese a good life.
I believe that enough damage has been done to me personally and my reputation and the administration of Justice to detail a rebuttal of the issues raised in the event your Excellency remits this letter to the Chancellor and the tendentious issues lead to unnecessary angst.
Excellency, you have the assurances of my highest consideration.

……………………………………….
Hon. Basil Williams, S.C.,M.P
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs