AG to file fresh summons in confidence-vote appeal
Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams, exiting the  Court of Appeal on Wednesday
Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams, exiting the Court of Appeal on Wednesday

ATTORNEY General Basil Williams is expected to file a fresh set of summons today that will correlate with the new appeal challenging the ruling of the High Court in the no-confidence motion cases.

It was expected that arguments pertaining to the conservatory order being sought to preserve the status quo of the government, and the request for an interim stay to freeze the January 31 decision of the High Court would have been heard on Wednesday, but several issues arose, preventing the cases from moving forward. When the Court of Appeal was convened, it was discovered that the initial Notice of Appeal filed by the attorney general was defective, and the attempt to remedy the situation by filing a new Notice of Appeal did not help the situation, because the summons predated it, resulting in another mistake.

In the case, Attorney General v Christopher Ram, in which Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire’s decision to uphold the vote of no-confidence is being challenged, the sitting judge, Justice Rishi Persaud, pointed out that the initial Notice of Appeal, filed on February 5, is defective. It was explained that the appellant failed to name Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo as a respondent in the matter, although he was a respondent in the substantive case in the High Court.

In response, the attorney general, who appeared in association with Attorneys-at-Law Maxwell Edwards and Mayo Robertson, told the court that the Notice of Appeal was “adjusted” as he referred to a fresh Notice of Appeal filed on February 15.
Justice Persaud, however, said the new appeal posed an additional problem. He explained that the summons to stay the decision of the High Court and preserve the status quo of government predated the new Notice of Appeal. Additionally, the summons named Ram as the only respondent, when the leader of the opposition should have been added.

Attorney Anil Nandlall

“The original Notice of Appeal that you filed would have been defective…but you subsequently corrected that by filing a Notice of Appeal that included the leader of the opposition; but now the position is, the stay of execution which is supposed to hang on to the Notice of Appeal predates the Notice of Appeal,” Justice Persaud told the attorney general. He said it ought to be corrected.

“All that needs to be done is that the summons have to be re-filed, and affidavit re-sworn,” the appellate judge explained in the presence of Senior Counsel Neil Boston and Rafiq Khan; and Attorneys-at-Law Anil Nandlall, Kamal Ramkarran and Roysdale Forde.
But this position did not sit well with the attorney general, who argued that the flaws highlighted in the original Notice of Appeal could not have been “fatal.”

“The appeal was properly filed. If a party might have been omitted it does not invalidate or void the application,” the attorney general argued, while alluding to the fact that the opposition leader was subsequently added as a party. But there is no room for two notices of appeal to be filed.

He pleaded with Justice Persaud to have the opposition leader added as a party on the original Notice of Appeal via an oral request, but it was repeatedly explained that only the full bench of the Court of Appeal could amend an application or Notice of Appeal.
“My respectful submission is, one, that the court has two appeals before it, and I am seeking to withdraw the second appeal, and my application therefore is that the motion is coincident with the appeal,” he told the court, while requesting that the opposition leader be added.

But the AG was unable to convince the appellate judge that he, in the absence of a full bench, could ‘amend’ the Notice of the Appeal to include the opposition leader on the spot. The appellate judge maintained that the rules governing the Court of Appeal do not permit him to amend applications.

After failing to convince Justice Persaud, the AG conceded and agreed to withdraw the old summons, and file a fresh one that correlates with the new Notice of Appeal.
In the second case, Attorney General v The Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition, similar issues arose. It was noted that while two respondents were named in this application, including the opposition leader, the AG had omitted Joseph Harmon who was added as a respondent in the matter at the High Court. As such, the Notice of Appeal in this case, was also not properly filed. It is anticipated that the necessary corrections will be made by today.

Outside the Court of Appeal, Nandlall expressed his disappointment that the cases were further delayed. “As you know, we wanted this matter to be expeditiously disposed of so that we can get onto the other aspects of the matter. Unfortunately the attorney general’s appeal was riddled with mistakes,” Nandlall told reporters. Nandlall said he had pointed out the omissions at a session they had at the Appellate Court last Friday. “The lawyers who were here representing the attorney general sought to correct it, but I think they made more errors than correction,” he opined.

Meanwhile, the AG told reporters that it was the state solicitor who filed over an appeal, adding the leader of the opposition. However, he said while Jagdeo was not named as a respondent on the original Notice of Appeal, he was named as a person interested in the case on the very document. “Any discrepancies in the rubric of a matter can’t be fatal, and there are ample authorities for it,” he posited. Nonetheless, he committed to filing fresh summons today that would correspond with the new Notices of Appeal.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.