HIGH Court Judge, Nareshwar Harnanan, on Thursday, dismissed the application filed by Attorney-at-law, Timothy Jonas, challenging the legality of the four Senior Counsel (SC) appointments made by former President, David Granger, last year. Justice Harnanan further ruled that the President, as Guyana’s supreme executive authority, is vested with the exclusive prerogative to confer legal practitioners with silk. Jonas, an Executive Member of A New and United Guyana (ANUG) has asked the court to grant an Order of Certiorari to quash the SC appointments of Attorneys-at-law Jamila Ali, Roysdale Forde, Mursalene Bacchus and Stanley Moore.

The Judge; however, refused to grant such orders, stating that the court does not find the complaints of the applicant to be “meritorious”.
“There are no issues of unconstitutionality in the appointment process as currently exists. The orders prayed for are therefore refused,” the judge said in his ruling.
Attorney-General, Anil Nandlall, was named as the respondent in the matter while the Bar Association of Guyana and

Attorney-at-law, Hari Ramkarran SC were permitted to intervene, amicus curiae in the case.

The judge, in his ruling, sided with the submissions made the Attorney-General, who contended that proceedings like these give rise to novel issues

in Guyanese jurisprudence, not previously canvassed in a significant way.
He argued that the President, as the supreme executive authority, is vested with the exclusive prerogative and such a power was never vested in the Judiciary of Guyana. Additionally, he said that the President’s prerogative to confer Silk does not infringe on judicial independence, nor is it unconstitutional in any other way.
Against this backdrop, Nandlall pointed out that Jonas, in his submissions, claims that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to confer Silk. “This is emphatically denied, and the applicant has not provided evidence of this,” the AG argued in his submissions.

He noted that the power to appoint Queen’s/King’s Counsel originated with the Monarch, and in Guyana’s case, was exercisable by the Governor, who was the Queen’s representative in British Guiana. The powers of the Queen were exercisable by the Governor-General by virtue of the Guyana Independence Ordinance 1966, which powers included the prerogative to appoint Silk. Additionally, the Common Law of England, which included the prerogative of the Monarch to confer Silk became the common law of Guyana since 1917 by virtue of the Civil Law of Guyana Act. The Republic Act then captured the, inter alia, prerogatives of the Queen, and vested same in the

President of Guyana in 1970. The President, he reiterated has the power to confer Silk as part of his prerogative to confer honours. “It is respectfully submitted that the dignity of Silk has become, by evolution of the convention, an honour. If we accept that the dignity of Silk is an honour conferred upon Attorneys-at-law as a mark of distinction, then it must be accepted that the President of Guyana, as the fountainhead of honours in Guyana has the power, or prerogative, to confer Silk as an honour,” the AG said in his submission. The AG had cited Article 193 (Vii) of the

Constitution of Guyana which contemplates the power of the President to bestow honours.

SHALL NOT INVESTIGATE
The Article states, “The Ombudsman shall not investigate any such action, or action taken with respect to any such matter, as is described hereunder: the grant of honours, awards or privileges within the gift of the President.”
Before parting, the judge said that there is a need for increased transparency and the required criteria for the bestowing of Silk.
“It cannot go observed that the manner of appointment is somewhat opaque. This may lend itself to the perception that persons were undeserving of this esteemed honour may benefit because of some patronage or another. Having said that, this court must also say that there is nothing unsavoury in their manner of appointment as it follows on the traditions which have flowed from the exercise of that Royal prerogative,” the judge stressed.

Justice Harnanan further highlighted that it is time for reform of the process of appointment of senior counsel. Against this backdrop, the judge added that the challenge before the court did not seek to verify any of the appointments as being undeserving of the dignity of Senior Council but rather a challenge on the manner and process of appointment. “There is a need for increased transparency of the requirement criteria and the nomination and selection process of deserving counsel to be stored the corner of taking silk,” the judge said as he welcomed the remarks by the Attorney-General, who during his oral arguments, indicated that a review of the manner of appointments is near. Jonas in his grounds of application has said, “The power and discretion to admit persons at the Bar of Guyana, to preside over such persons, to discipline, suspend and disbar such persons is conferred by the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act and common law on the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana.”
DISCRETION
He noted that the Full Bench of the High Court, had, from time to time, exercised a discretion to confer on attorneys-at-law who have practised with distinction before the court, the dignity of ‘Senior Counsel’. As such, he is of the opinion that Granger’s announcement last December that Forde, Ali, Bacchus, and Moore be appointed SC with effect from January 1, 2020 was unlawful. “There is no statutory or other power conferred on the President of Guyana whether as President or otherwise to make such a decision or to appoint attorneys-at-law to the dignity of Senior Counsel, and the decision by the President as communicated in the said publication is entirely void and of no effect,” Jonas submitted to the court.

He added: “Insofar as the (former) President, a member of the executive, purports to make a decision within the province of the inherent discretion of the High Court, his trespass into the realm of the judiciary violates Article 122 of the Constitution and is illegal and void.” In October, the Office of the President (OP) announced that Nandlall and Jonas will be appointed Senior Counsel with effect from October 30. The announcement, OP said followed consultations between Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag), Yonette Cummings and President, Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali. “Their appointments are due to their demonstrable knowledge of, and learning in the law, and on account of their exemplary erudition and diligence in the practice of the law, and, by virtue of their distinguished contributions to the growth and development of Guyana’s jurisprudence and constitutional democracy,” the OP statement noted. On Thursday, Anil Nandlall, Timothy Jonas and Jamela Ali were presented with their instrument of appointment at State House by the President.