THE High Court in Demerara has ruled on lawsuits filed by retired Justices Brassington Reynolds and Franklyn Holder, who alleged that the Guyana Government unfairly withheld a retroactive salary increase granted to public servants up to December 2021.

The case sparked public debate, with accusations that the government’s actions were discriminatory against the two Afro-Guyanese judges.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC, addressed the controversy on his weekly programme, Issues in the News, where he refuted claims of racial bias. He explained that while Justice Holder was unsuccessful in his claim, Justice Reynolds secured a partial victory. When these proceedings were filed, the Attorney General said they received widespread media coverage, prompting public criticism of the government. According to him, there were allegations that the government was wrong for not paying the retired judges and accused it of attempting to stifle judges.

“In fact, one set of criticisms was to the effect that this was some form of racial discrimination—that these were two Afro-Guyanese judges being discriminated against. We defended the case; they had a very experienced and respected lawyer…and they did not succeed in the claims they had filed. One of them failed completely, and the other was marginally successful. In fact, we conceded that he was entitled to the reliefs,” he said.

Both judges requested the High Court to order that they be entitled to a monthly pension of $819,556, rather than their current pension of $758,849.
Justice Reynolds further sought a court order directing the State to pay him a total of $5,132,010, which includes $1,161,160 in outstanding salary for January to December 2022; $2,639,000 in unpaid gratuity; $57,003 in pension arrears for December 2022; $728,484 in pension arrears for 2023, and $546,363 in pension arrears for January to September 2024.
Justice Reynolds was granted partial relief, with the court ruling that he was entitled to a retroactive salary increase because he was still on the payroll at the time the government issued the salary increase order. As a result, he will receive an increase retroactive to January 1 of the year of his retirement. However, the court found that his pensions were properly commuted, meaning that his claim for a higher pension was denied.

Justice Holder, on the other hand, sought a court order for the payment of $5,034,896, comprising $950,040 in outstanding salary for January to September 2022; $2,639,000 in unpaid gratuity; $171,009 in pension arrears for October to December 2022; $728,484 in pension arrears for 2023, and $546,363 in pension arrears for January to September 2024.

Nandlall said: “The judge who decided the case found that this particular judge did not make out a case for the reliefs. In other words, he did not make out a case that he was entitled to any retroactive emoluments, and consequently, he is not entitled to any consequential increase in pension. So, the State committed no error in relation to the computation of his benefits.”
The lawsuits were filed in October 2024 by Senior Counsel Stephen Fraser and attorney Shantel Scott-Lall. The retired judges had argued that the government’s failure to pay them the retroactive salary increase violated the Constitutional Offices (Remuneration of Holders) Order and contravened their constitutional right to pension and superannuation benefits.
They also challenged the legitimacy of Finance Circular No. 11/2022, which limited the eight percent increase to public servants, staff of constitutional agencies, and members of the Disciplined Services who were employed up to December 31, 2022.

The retired judges contended that the restriction was unconstitutional and that they had a legitimate expectation of receiving the retroactive increase. The former judges also sought a court order declaring that the failure to pay them the retroactive salary increase breaches their legitimate expectation of receiving the increase on their salary as of December 31, 2021.

They also requested damages in excess of $100,000. The respondents in the matter included the Attorney General, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance Dr. Ashni Singh, Finance Secretary Sukrishalall Pasha, and Principal Assistant Secretary of the Finance Department of the Supreme Court, Asaf Alli.
With the High Court’s ruling, the government has been vindicated in its decision regarding Justice Holder’s benefits, while Justice Reynolds will receive partial payments in accordance with the ruling. However, Nandlall stated that the State has filed an appeal in relation to both cases.