AG challenges court order against Jordan
Minister of Finance Winston Jordan (Delano Williams photo)
Minister of Finance Winston Jordan (Delano Williams photo)

THE Attorney General Chambers has filed a notice of appeal challenging an order made by Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry for Winston Jordan, not in his capacity as Finance Minister, to pay an outstanding amount of US$2,228,400.67 to Trinidad construction company, Dipcon, by July 8, 2019, or go to jail.

The order stemmed from a contempt motion which was filed on behalf of the company by Attorney-at-law, Timothy Jonas, back in early May this year.

The award to the company was first handed down by Justice of Appeal, Rishi Persaud, on 21st October 2015. Government has challenged the award but the company’s lawyer, earlier this year, moved to the court with contempt proceedings against Jordan.

“The ruling was erroneous and the judge committed a specific illegality when she made an order against the minister in his private capacity and not in his official capacity as Minister of Finance, thus robbing him of the protection he is entitled to under Section 14 of the State Liability and Proceedings Act Chapter 6:05 wherein no coercive order can be made against him,” Attorney General Basil Williams told the Guyana Chronicle following the order by the court.

Williams said the chambers will file the appeal notice this morning.

Williams told the Guyana Chronicle that he had raised the issue during a hearing in the matter Monday morning. He believes that the applicant had deliberately filed the contempt motion proceedings against Jordan in his private capacity in an attempt to rob him of the privileges he enjoys under the act. “This is an abuse and so we will be filing a notice of appeal today,” Williams stated.

According to grounds listed in Dipcon’s application to the court, by letter dated 28th December 2015, the Registrar of the Supreme Court transmitted the order made by Justice Persaud to the minister who “thereupon became obligated …to direct, by warrant under his hand, that the amount awarded thereby to be paid.”

Meanwhile, in the Notice of Appeal, the AG Chambers noted that the appellant being dissatisfied with the decision more particularly stated in paragraph 2 (two) herein of the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature contained in the Judgement of the Honourable Madam Ms. Priya Sewnarine- Beharry dated the 24th June 2019 in Action No. 2019-HC-DEM-CIV-FDA-629, do hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon grounds set out in paragraph 3 (three) and will at the hearing of the appeal seek the relief set out in paragraph 4 (four).

And the Appellant further states that the names and addresses including their own and persons directly affected by the appeal are set out in paragraph 5 (five). In the appeal notice, the AG chambers said the learned Trial Judge erred and was misconceived in that she improperly proceeded with the Application against the minister in his personal capacity when all his actions originated as a consequence of his position as Minister of Finance and not as Winston Jordan the person. “The learned Trial Judge erred and was misconceived in law when she failed to appreciate that the actions of the Minister of Finance and that of Winston Jordon as a person are mutually exclusive and that Winston Jordan the person had no statutory duty over the Consolidated Revenue Fund.”

“The learned Trial Judge erred and was misconceived in failing to accede to the preliminary objection raised by the State in relation to the premature nature of the Application and the order sought. The learned Trial Judge erred and was misconceived in when the learned judge failed to appreciate that contempt proceedings were coercive in nature and that such an order could not be made against an officer of the State but in particular against Winston Jordan privately when no act was done by Winston Jordan in his private capacity for contempt to prevail against him.”

Additionally, the state is arguing, in its appeal, that the judge also erred and was misconceived in law when she failed to grant an order staying the order in order that the state can pursue the process of Appeal. “The learned Trial Judge erred in law and/or misdirected herself on the evidence as a whole.”

The AG chambers indicated that additional and/ or amended grounds may be filed upon seeing the final written Judgement of the Learned Trial Judge.

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.