PRESIDENT David Granger has said that he is confident that the issue between the Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Basil Williams and High Court Judge, Justice Franklin Holder, will be resolved.

“I am very confident that the matter will be resolved,” President Granger told reporters at State House on Thursday.
The Head of State said he has asked for an explanation, and the Attorney General has since responded. In due time, the President said he will respond to Minister Williams and the Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag), Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards.

He told reporters that it is important to hear both sides before jumping to conclusions. “I want to hear both sides. We heard one side in the media [and] I have asked the Attorney General for his side,” President Granger said.
On Wednesday, the Attorney General laid the blame at the feet of Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall, while assuring that he and the judge will resolve the matter.
In a letter to the Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary on March 24, 2017, Justice Holder called for a genuine and meaningful apology to be made by Williams in open court. The issue had come to the fore when Nandlall claimed that Williams threatened to kill Justice Holder, causing the judge to walk off the bench – an allegation which has since been denied by the Attorney General.

In the letter, Justice Holder explained that he left the bench because of an alleged statement made by Williams. The Attorney General reportedly said, “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. Justice Holder said he felt disrespected.
In a statement issued Wednesday by the Attorney General’s Chambers, Minister Williams thanked Justice Holder for exposing what he described as the iniquity of Nandlall, even as he empathised with the High Court Judge “for the unrelenting torture he was subjected to that morning by Nandlall.”

The Attorney General is contending that he may have been a victim of “transferred frustration.” “The Attorney General believes that, after nearly three hours of ‘barracking’ by Nandlall, any reasonable person could fall prey to ‘transferred frustration.’ Perhaps his detaining the Learned Judge again as he was preparing to leave the Bench, seeking clarity on whether the witness’ answer of ‘no’ was recorded, induced certain misapprehensions in the Judge’s mind in all the circumstances and the Attorney General became the victim of ‘transferred frustration,’” the statement said.

However, it said that the Attorney General “is not unprepared to work with the Learned Judge to resolve what was a fleeting engagement after the business of the day was completed.”