THE media continues to be inundated with letters, commentaries and articles about the recent incident in the High Court involving Attorney-General, Basil Williams and Justice Franklin Holder.
We have so far heard both sides of what started out as an allegation, in that a death threat was made by Mr Williams to the judge, to now charges of contempt and disrespect for the judge and his court. Justice Holder himself has leveled the latter allegations against the Attorney- General.
Note must be taken in this entire exchange that the original complaint of the incident in the High Court came from Attorney-at-Law, Anil Nandlall who had made the outrageous claim that the AG had threatened the judge, forcing him to walk off the bench. This was later proven to be untrue, as the judge, in his own words, said that he left the bench when Williams uttered the words: “I can say what I want to say and whenever I want to say it; I have always been like that.” Justice Holder went on to describe Mr Williams’ behaviour as “insulting, disrespectful and calculated to scandalise and lower the authority of the court.” He added that Williams’ behaviour was highly contemptuous, and deserving of his being cited for contempt, in the face of the court. Justice Holder made no mention of any “threat”, and although he referenced Williams’ statement about a dead magistrate, he did not describe it as a threat.
Interestingly enough, when this information became public, the conversation suddenly changed from threatening behaviour to the AG’s alleged contemptuous remarks, by which time Nandlall’s mischief of sensationalising and politicising the alleged threat to the judge’s life had already inflicted serious damage on the AG’s person and the government.
It seems almost lost, in this whole episode, what Mr Nandlall had said and the blatant nature of it. That he could have scandalised the court of Justice Holder by falsely reporting something as serious as the AG threatening a sitting judge, and somehow come out unscathed tells us how some persons are judged in our society. Not only did Nandlall misrepresent the nature of what Mr Williams said, but his statement was also picked up by the Guyana Times, the Kaieteur News and the PPP Online blog, Citizens Report. Soon after both the PPP and several of its MPs issued statements and wrote letters, a meeting of judges was convened. Nandlall is no saint, as his own indiscretions, from being heard on tape soliciting a female for a family member, to threatening mayhem at the Kaieteur News, which latter ignominy earned him the nickname, “Chatree”, are all well documented.
As former Magistrate, Mr Maxwell Edwards said in a letter in yesterday’s edition of our newspaper, “Mr. Nandlall has transformed a first-aid matter into one now requiring intensive-care treatment and major surgery. Rightfully so, had the matter remained one of perceived ‘disrespectful’ conduct (the judge’s version), or anecdotal assertiveness (the AG’s version), citizens would have been mildly indifferent to this matter. But Mr Nandlall must not be allowed to succeed in his machinations and contrivance. And he would succeed, if what Justice Holder has complained of as ‘egregious statement’ but what seems more of a discourtesy by the learned AG, becomes elevated into a really serious allegation of a contempt of court; coupled with a demand for an apology by the AG.”
The Attorney-General, also, cannot escape blame, as, with his recent elevation as a Senior Counsel, and his titular position as head of the bar come the expectation that he would lead by precept and example.
It is also expected that he conducts himself in a way that should not undermine the seriousness and the responsibility that come with the high office he holds. He must take the high road, however difficult it might be, amid the accusations and taunts from the man he replaced at 95, Carmichael Street, North Cummingsburg.
This matter will continue to engage the public, and as President David Granger has said, “In law, there is the principle to hear the other side.” And his admonition that we must not jump to conclusions is very timely, since, according to him: “…I am very confident that the matter will be resolved.”