THE Court of Appeal last Friday granted an application by Magistrate Charlyn Artiga to extend the time to file an appeal in the Bharrat Jagdeo alleged race-baiting case.
Friday’s decision follows a motion filed by the magistrate in March which called on the Court of Appeal to grant her an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal out of time in the case against the opposition leader.

In her Affidavit in Support of Motion, Artiga said she believes that it was the result of an error in the drafting in the Notice of Appeal which resulted in the Court of Appeal striking out the said appeal by the attorney general on January 18.

She said too that as a result of that decision, she has filed the motion seeking an extension in time for her to file her appeal out of time.
In January, the Court of Appeal had thrown out an appeal against the decision of the High Court in 2015 to dismiss the race-baiting charge against Jagdeo, a former president. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the attorney general was not the proper party to be named in the case as Magistrate Artiga was the named respondent in the prerogative writ.

Former Chancellor of the Judiciary, Carl Singh, who read the ruling of the court said the then Deputy Solicitor-General, Prithima Kissoon, who filed the appeal on behalf of the AG, had conceded that Williams wasn’t a proper party to the matter.
According to Justice Singh, the fact that Kissoon had conceded to Jagdeo’s lawyer Mursaline Bacchus’s contention that the AG was not a proper party to the proceeding was sufficient to have the case dismissed.

Approximately six months prior to the chancellor’s ruling, Kissoon was reportedly required to file an affidavit in response to Bacchus’s contention against the attorney general being named in the matter along with adding Magistrate Charlyn Artiga’s name to the appeal; this was not done.
Justice Singh in his ruling said he found the concession by the deputy solicitor-general to be of “great significance” and ruled that the appeal filed was null.
The former chancellor had also ruled that without any particulars, a race or ethnicity offence could not be attributed to the “opposition,” much less a race or ethnicity from “coolie people.”

He said too that “even if a specific race or ethnicity of the ‘opposition’ can be established by evidence, which is doubtful, that would not change the fact that the charge would be defective with respect to this statement [Jagdeo’s], since it does not disclose any facts that establish that second element…it is clear that…even if what is alleged in the particulars of the offence is proved that there cannot be no resulting connection since no criminal offence is disclosed.”

On March 8, 2015, while at a public meeting held at Babu Jaan, Corentyne, Berbice, it is alleged that Jagdeo made statements which amounted to racial incitement.
“The opposition consistently shout about racism of the PPP, but they practise racism…The opposition beat drums at six in the morning and say let us throw out these coolie people,” the former president said.

The charge of racial incitement was laid against the former President at the Whim Magistrate’s Court in Berbice and was filed by Chartered Accountant and Attorney, Christopher Ram. Ram had filed the matter in April, 2015 and argued that the words uttered by Jagdeo amounted to racial or ethnic hatred, contrary to Section 139 D (1) (a) of the Representation of the People Act, Chapter 1:03.
Section 139D (1) (a) of the Representation of the People Act, CAP 1:03 of the Laws of Guyana, provides that any person who makes or publishes any statement which results or can result in racial or ethnic hatred among the people shall be liable to conviction.
However, Jagdeo through his attorney described the charge as lacking merit, malicious and concocted.

Meanwhile, on Friday,Solicitor-General Kim Kyte told the court that the application was made pursuant to Order 11 Rule 3(5) of the Court of appeal Rules Chapter 3:01 applied for an enlargement of time for the time of appealing.
Kyte in her arguments said that the High Court ruling of Justice Navindra Singh to dismiss charges against Jagdeo, because the particulars of the offence failed to disclose an offence listed in law, was erroneous.

The solicitor-general said too that the reason for the delay in the affidavit filed was indeed a mistake by the attorney in adding the wrong party as the appellant in the case. She stressed that though the delay was due to the fault of the attorney, the fact that the appellant’s intent to appeal has demonstrated the delay can be deemed excusable.
Kyte contended that Artiga was not responsible for her counsel’s error and relied on her attorney to file the correct appeal.

“It is respectfully submitted that a denial of the application would result in a grave miscarriage of justice, since the matter herein is of grave national importance and significant public interest and should be permitted to be ventilated in a higher court on its merits, as opposed to being disposed of by a mere technicality,” said the solicitor-general.
On April 20, 2015, Jagdeo’s attorneys had made submissions before Magistrate Artiga. The magistrate on May 25 overruled the submissions, released him on self-bail and adjourned the case. On June 26, 2015, Jagdeo filed an ex parte Notice of Motion for an order Nisi of certiorari to quash the magistrate’s said decision and for an order Nisi of Prohibition to prevent the said magistrate from taking any further steps in the said proceedings.

Justice William Ramlal on the said day granted the said orders, unless the magistrate showed cause why they should not be made absolute. Meanwhile, the hearing for Magistrate Charlyn Artiga to show cause why the said orders Nisi should not be made absolute was heard by Justice Navindra Singh.
Justice Singh on December 11, 2015, made absolute the orders Nisi made on June 26 by Justice Ramlal who quashed Artiga’s decision on the ground that it was irrational, unreasonable, and erroneous in law, null, void and of no legal effect.
Additionally, Justice Singh prevented Artiga from proceeding with the case on the ground that she had no jurisdiction to inquire into the charge, which was fundamentally defective and legally unsound.

As a result of that ruling, an appeal was filed by the AG’s Chambers which contended that there were areas of substantial and grave misdirection of law and fact.
Kyte in her submission maintained that the grounds of Appeal in the Notice of Appeal serve to elucidate that Justice Singh’s findings on issues of fact and law were incorrect.
She contended that it is only the Court of Appeal that can deliberate on the findings of fact and law made by Justice Singh and ultimately rule on the findings and or conclusions made by the trial judge.

“It is respectfully submitted that the findings and or conclusions on factual and legal issues by the Honourable Mr. Justice Navindra Singh are wrong, substantial and grave and there is a high likelihood that upon appeal, the said finding and or conclusions would be set aside.
It is respectfully submitted that the applicant has shown to the court that there is every reasonable prospect of success in the appeal,” said Kyte.