Justice Franklin Holder recused himself on Monday morning from the Carvil Duncan case, following an application filed by Judy Stuart and Coleen Liverpool on behalf of Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams.

The Judge had presided over Carvil Duncan’s challenge to his suspension as Public Service Commission Chairman. The Attorney General did not appear before the Judge this morning.

The application followed a letter written by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, who requested that the AG ask that the Judge recuse himself in the matter, contending the outcome may be biased based on the simple fact that his attorney [Williams] has been barred from being heard in the matter.

Williams has been barred from appearing before Justice Holder until he issues a “genuine and meaningful” apology for statements that were considered to be disrespectful and contemptuous during an incident in the High Court on March 23, 2017. But these allegations have been rubbished by the Attorney General.

However, before recusing himself, the Judge maintained his position that the AG was disrespectful and should apologise. According to the Judge, he gave Williams “enough time to reflect on his actions” but is not necessarily mandated to charge him with contempt of court immediately.

Justice Holder told the High Court that he does not regret his position but maintained that Williams as Head of the Bar, ought to have acted differently and that he should have apologised and not resort to politics.

The Judge made it clear that his letter to the Chancellor was not a complaint but a report and that he has not recused himself as a result if any skewed statements.  The case has since been referred to the Chief Justice for reassignment.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister had told his Attorney that as a result of the incident and a subsequent petition to the Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag), Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards by Justice Holder, he does not believe that the trial would be a fair one.

In his May 4 letter, Nagamootoo said that the Judge had the power to handle the alleged incident between himself and the State’s Attorney General amicably in Court instead of retiring to his Chambers without the formal rising of the Court.

Additionally, the Prime Minister argued that the petition to the Chancellor demanding that the State’s Attorney General apologises in open Court before continuation of the State’s matter, puts the State at a disadvantage.