Dear Editor
“…for the first time in 23 years, orders have been made by Judges in our Courts against the President, Prime Minister and Attorney General, without giving them a hearing…” These words are attributed by media to the Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr Basil Williams, speaking in his capacity of Chairman of the PNC to the party’s General Council over the weekend.

This contention by the Attorney-General is not only factually inaccurate, but constitutes another reckless, scathing, unjustifiable and unwarranted assault on the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Ralph Ramkarran S.C., over the weekend wrote, elegantly, condemning similar attacks by the Attorney-General, which he described as “unprecedented in their savagery.”

Firstly, I know of no Order granted by the judiciary against President David Granger, simpliciter, moreover, one that was granted against the President, without a hearing. I call upon the Attorney General to produce a copy of any such Order. In any event, it is trite and settled law that though the President is personally immune from suit, his actions are not. They are lawfully challengeable by proceedings filed against the Attorney-General. A number of legal challenges have been filed against Presidential actions, decisions and conduct through the Attorney-General, over the past 23 years. The legal challenges filed against the suspension of Channel 6 from broadcasting and the granting of radio licences were challenges to presidential actions/ decisions that occurred over the last twenty-three (23) years, which quickly come to mind.

Significantly, where a citizen alleges that his/her fundamental rights have been, is being or is likely to be contravened, Article 153 of the Constitution confers upon the High Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, an original and unlimited jurisdiction to “make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of securing or enforcing any…” of these fundamental rights and freedoms. Presidential actions and/decisions are not exempted and if the justice of the case demands, then conservatory orders can be issued and have been known to be granted, ex-parte, against such actions/ decisions.

As regards the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, in the eyes of the law, they enjoy no special place and they stand before the law on the same footing as every other public officer. In fit and proper cases, ex-parte orders can be made against them. There is only one exception. In private law matters, prohibitory or coercive orders cannot be made against the State, as per the State Liabilities and Proceedings Act. However, this Act has no applicability in constitutional or public law proceedings. Therefore, it is perfectly proper and lawful for ex-parte orders to be made against the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General in appropriate cases in constitutional or public law litigation.

The clear intention of the Attorney-General was to mislead a substantial political block of persons in this country and to pit them against the judiciary by conveying the impression that the Judiciary is against them. Not only is it designed to sap the judiciary of its independence and autonomy, but it also drags the judiciary baselessly into the political realm, which can result in an erosion of public confidence in the legal system. No democratic society governed by the rule of law can afford to stay silent in the face of these atrocities. The judiciary must function fearlessly and operate in an atmosphere free from fear. This constant barrage of attacks and intimidation must end now.

Regards
Mohabir Nandlall