-after rejecting Basil Williams’ claim of bias 

HIGH Court Judge, Priya Sewnarine-Beharry, on Monday, threw out an application filed by former Attorney General, Basil Williams, S.C., asking her to recuse herself from hearing a $25 million lawsuit filed by his successor, Anil Nandlall, S.C.

In January 2021, Williams had sought to have the court disqualify itself from hearing Nandlall’s claim on the ground of likelihood or appearance of bias during the course of the case.

In 2017, Nandlall filed a $25M lawsuit seeking damages for libel and slander against Williams, who was then, Minister of Legal Affairs, for publicly stating that he (Nandlall) would be charged for stealing several law books belonging to the State.

Justice Sewnarine-Beharry, on November 6, 2017, dismissed the claim over a breach of procedural compliance in accordance with the new Civil Procedure Rules. Nandlall subsequently appealed the case in the Full Court and the matter was reinstated before Justice Sewnarine-Beharry.

The judge, on December 5, 2019, granted an order to stay the hearing of the case until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings filed against Nandlall in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court with respect to the alleged theft of the law books.

However, in October 2020, the larceny charge was withdrawn against Nandlall based on instructions from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack.

This paved the way for the resumption of the case before Justice Sewnarine-Beharry. Before, the court could properly hear the matter, Williams in January 2021, made an application for the judge to recuse herself on the ground that she showed bias especially when she stayed the case on December 5, 2019.

He also contended that the judge showed bias when she allegedly said that should the criminal charges against Nandlall be dismissed, the libel suit will be sustained and conversely if Nandlall was convicted of the criminal offence, then the libel suit will be dismissed.

“The staying of the matter until the criminal proceedings were determined conveys that Justice Beharry attaches greater importance to the outcome of the charge rather than that the charge itself confirmed the claimant’s [Nandlall] contention that the defendant said he would be charged. The claimant being charged with larceny of the missing law books established the defendant’s defence of truth and fair comment on a matter of public interest,” Williams said in his application.

During her ruling on Monday, at the Demerara High Court, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry, said that the decision to stay the proceedings was in furtherance of the overriding objective of the court to do justice to the parties.

Against this background, the judge noted that her December 5, 2019 ruling was done in accordance with the court’s responsibility to actively manage cases in accordance with Rule 25.02(1)(c)(iv) of the Civil Procedures Rules (CPR) 2016. In this regard, Rule 25.02(1)(c)(iv) empowers the court in actively managing cases to stay the whole or part of any proceeding generally or until a specified date or event.

Regarding Williams’ complaint that the inordinate award of costs by the court against him demonstrates an appearance of bias, the judge said that the court’s flysheet record into the case demonstrates that this contention is unmeritorious and that the court has awarded more costs to Williams than Nandlall.

As such, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry said that the decision of her court to stay the proceedings and award costs against Williams are judicial decisions and rulings that could have formed the basis of an appeal and are insufficient to constitute a valid ground for recusal.

“In conclusion, an informed, fair-minded, and reasonable observer would not, in all of the circumstances of this particular case, have formed an objective opinion that there was a real likelihood that this court might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question involved,” the judge said before dismissing Williams’ application.

Costs were awarded to Nandlall in the sum of $150,000 to be paid by Williams on or before January 14, 2022.

In determining the quantum of costs to be awarded in this matter, the judge took into consideration that Williams’ application appears to be an attempt to stall/or delay the hearing of the substantive claim which is ripe for hearing and ought not to be encouraged.