– High Court dismisses AG’s appeal for Finance Minister

JUSTICES Diana Inshanally and Simone Morris-Ramlall blocked the attempt of the State, to safeguard Finance Minister, Winston Jordan, from being arrested for criminal contempt of court.

In a full-court hearing at the High Court on Friday, the judges said that they were not satisfied with the grounds of appeal listed by the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams SC (AG), and it was not proven that Minister Jordan is not in contempt.

This matter stemmed from an inherited State debt of US$2,228,400.67 to Trinidad construction company, Dipcon, who after not receiving their payment for contracts completed for the former administration, ran to the court and judgement was granted in their favour on two occasions.

However, the AG has since appealed the decisions at the Appellate Court, and had requested for a stay in judgment until the appeal is heard. Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry rejected the stay, and passed a court order that the money is to be paid on or before July 8, 2019. Failing to do so, Minister will be liable to imprisonment for 21 days for criminal contempt of court by deliberately subverting the previous court order. Additionally, the order stipulates that a court cost of three million dollars be paid.

The AG again, filed for a stay in the execution of judgment, the one of Justice Sewnarine-Beharry, until the matter before the Court of Appeal is heard.
When the AG appeared to present oral submissions of the grounds of his application, he was told by the judges that he could not represent Minister Jordan as the AG, but rather as attorney Basil Williams S.C.

This is due to the fact that minister is listed on the court order, but not in his ministerial capacity.

AG elaborated on several sections in the Contempt of Court Act. He argued profusely that the court committed a specific illegality when ruling that the matter was criminal contempt. He said the Act protects the minister from being charged as a private person for something that the state is responsible for.

A contempt motion, AG said, should be premised on prior order that was breeched. The contempt order however, was premised on Justice Rishi Persaud’s order that was not complied with. However, this order was against the minister and not in his personal capacity.

The AG further argued that in sections of the State Liability and Proceedings Act, there is a body of law that protects persons in public office, such as judges and ministers. He posited to the presiding judges that if the judiciary is in debt, judges will not be directly charged to pay the cost. This, he said, is because provisions were made in the law to protect them from being directly responsible for issues regarding the office.

Ordering the minister as a private person to pay a state debt should not be permitted because that will be in clear breach of the provisions made in the law.

As such, AG said, “the entire proceedings ought to be set aside as void abnitio.”
Justice Ramlall stopped the AG during his presentation of arguments, saying that he ought to not refer to the substantive matter, but should satisfy the court that the grounds in existing matter at the Appeal Court bears merit and provide proper reasoning as to why the High Court should grant a stay in execution of Justice Beharry’s decision.

DIPCON’s attorney, Timothy Jonas, argued that the minister has subverted three rulings of the court. He said that contempt was proven because the action is willful interference with the administration of justice, since it has been four years since the first order and nothing is being done to clear the debt.

Jonas cited quotes and extracts which alluded that no man is bigger than the law, even those in high positions. He said that the Act being referred to by the AG does not exempt Jordan from contempt, but rather refers to the remedy in which the contempt is to be dealt with.

After a five minute adjournment, the court returned with the decision that no merit was found in the appeal, and no chances of success was evident in the existing matter at the Appeal Court. As such, the stay was dismissed.

AG remains firm on his grounds that the court erred in passing its order, and another application will be filed immediately.

He told this newspaper that the judges denied him the opportunity to present his full case, and went back on their word on not referring to the substantive matter and the order of the Chief Justice.

He said that the initial application was filed against the Attorney General and Minister of Finance, but they both were stripped of their functioning capacities in the hearing of the matter and the order of the court, and that should not be permitted.

In relation to the payment of the debt, the State had previously filed an Affidavit in Defence on February 27, 2018, arguing that the payment of the judgment requires the approval of Cabinet; that no funds are available in the Consolidated Fund to pay the judgment; that the judgment was fraudulently obtained, and that ‘the matter’ is under investigation by the Guyana Police Force.

However, Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George, had ruled that the Affidavit of Defence has no merit, and she issued an Order of Mandamus directing the Minister to pay the said amount.
Minister Jordan had previously lamented on the fact that the Coalition Government inherited billions in court judgment from the previous government.

This, he said, will continue to have a negative impact on cash flows, particularly those earmarked for developmental areas. The minister also explained that once judgment is awarded, interest payments amount to six per cent from the time the case is lodged in the court, to the time of the award, and four per cent between the time of the award to the time of payment.
No update on when the payment will be made was given by the State.