-cites Nigel Hughes’ ‘attack’ on chamber

WHILE refuting the version of events of attorney Nigel Hughes regarding the issues of bias in the Public Service Appellate Tribunal hearing on the dismissal of former Deputy Solicitor, Prithima Kissoon, the Attorney General’s Chamber is emphasising the uncle-niece relation between the appellant and chairman of the panel and trump calls for the latter to recuse himself.

Last week the AG Chamber noted that Justice Nandram Kissoon has acknowledged that he is indeed the uncle of the appellant, but is insisting that the State file an affidavit in answer with submissions addressing the issue of bias.

On Monday, the chamber in response to a release from Hughes over the weekend, stated that the attorney in his statement “deliberately misrepresented the true facts of the proceedings.” The chamber also noted Hughes’ personal attack on the “professionalism and integrity” of the government agency.

The AG Chamber stated that Justice Kissoon pointed out at the proceedings last week that he was the uncle of the appellant and enquired whether there was any objection from the parties.

It was noted that the Counsel on behalf of the Attorney General’s Chamber immediately stood and raised her objection on the ground of bias. She then requested that the Chairman should immediately recuse himself from the matter, given his family relationship to the appellant.

“The Chairman did not recuse himself or rule on the preliminary objection of bias but proceeded to sit on the tribunal to hear and determine other matters relating to the appellant,” the AG Chamber said.

A second objection in respect to the Chairman was raised by Counsel for the chamber in the uncle of the appellant hearing and deliberating on issues in relation to the appeal of the appellant, his niece and the agency also cited several authorities in relation to bias.
The Chairman then responded “that he knows all the authorities starting with Pinochet”, the chamber said.” To date the Chairman has not recused himself in the good administration of justice and has instead requested that Counsel make submissions in writing to the Tribunal consisting of himself to hear and determine this issue,” the body noted.

It said that it was unfortunate that neither Nigel Hughes, a senior officer of the Court raised the issue of bias or supported the application by the AG Chamber.

“Even more alarming, Mr. Hughes’ statement to the press failed to address the core issue which was raised before the tribunal, that of patent obvious bias before the Tribunal, but noted the apparent personal attack on the Attorney General’s Chamber,” the entity noted.
The chamber cited “the exemplary conduct” of a number of senior judges of the High Court who recently recused themselves from hearing a matter involving Banks DIH because they hold shares in Banks DIH Limited and reassigned the matter.

“It is apposite to note that those senior judges noted the objection and did not continue to deliberate on the issue nor order the parties to make written submissions on the issue,” the entity said.

It was noted that the Counsel for the Attorney General’s Chamber will repeat and rely on their objections on the adjourned date in respect to the Chairman of the Tribunal, uncle of the appellant, sitting and hearing the appeal of his niece–the appellant.
The AG chambers said it will continue to rely on the old adage that “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”