Al withdraws summonses Judicial Review Act
To this end Nandlall said at the AG continues to waste me.
He complained too of the Williams consistently not honuring his obligations to pay osts awarded by to him which as to be borne by the state.
Nandlall, the respondent in Williams’ appeal was on Monday awarded court costs
the sum of $50,000 by the ppellate court following pplications.
Williams had asked not to ave any costs imposed but hancellor Yonette ummings-Edwards noted at the matter had already een fixed some three weeks go for hearing and it was the ourt’s intention to so proceed ith it on Monday. The AG then sought to dvance that “Cabinet had ken a decision to…” but the hancellor interjecting stating at the court was not conerned with the workings of abinet.
Williams said his applicaon for withdrawal could only ave been made on Monday as followed certain pronounceents made by President avid Granger in his address
the Parliament last hursday.
Remaining resolute on the mposition of costs, however, e Chancellor sought from the G an appropriate amount hich should be paid to which e suggested $5,000. This figre not finding favour with the ourt, the AG then suggested somewhere between $105,000.”
“At this court [the Court of ppeal]?” the judge enquired. The AG responded in the ffirmative stating that in the cently-concluded appeal to e constitutionality of the ppointment of chairman of e Guyana Elections ommission in which a lot of ork had been undertaken, the ourt awarded no costs.
Justice Cummingsdwards, however, pointed out
the AG that in that case the ourt had made an order that ach party bear its own cost.
The judge then enquired from Nandlall’s attorney Rajendra Jaigobin the amount of costs he would recommend be granted to which he suggested $50,000 which he said was the amount granted in the High Court.
The case was heard by Justice Cummings-Edwards, Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory and High Court judge Brassington Reynolds.
In her ruling May 28 ruling, Justice George found that Williams had a duty to have already brought the legislation into effect more so since the CPR had already come into effect since 2016.
The JRA was supposed to have become operational on the CPR coming into effect.
Among other things, the Chief Justice noted that with these rules having been enforced, it was thereafter for the Minister of Legal Affairs to have also brought the JRA into operation, irrespective of which government is in power.
Justice George declared that Williams would have breached his duty by not bringing the Act into force, while noting that no excuse had been given and the delay on his part could only have been seen as a refusal to operationalise that law.
To that end, the Chief Justice had ordered that the JRA come into effect no later than July 31st.
In addition to appealing Justice George’s ruling, Williams had also sought from the Court of Appeal a stay of execution from having to comply with the High Court ruling until the hearing and determination of his appeal which he wanted urgently heard.
Appellate judge Justice Rafiq Khan SC who heard that stay application in June of this year was critical of the AG’s behaviour, particularly his disregard in carrying out his mandate in keeping with the Act.
In delivering his ruling, Justice Khan stated that the JRA became part of the laws of Guyana when the then president assented to it on November 2nd, 2010.
“Parliament saw it fit to delay the coming into operation of the JRA by vesting in the minister the power to bring it into force by order,” he said, while adding that Parliament intended that it should be operational so as to make available to the public a number of remedies for judicial review.
He said that the “only credible and sensible explanation” of the failure to have the JRA immediately brought into existence was that advanced by Nandlall, that is, that “the CPR which supplied the procedure and practice for the operation of the JRA was not at the time in a state of readiness.” He, however, pointed out that at the present time this is no longer the case.
The judge had said that in his opinion, what exists in this case is the “frustration and obstruction of the legislative arm of the government” in carrying out its constitutional mandate
of making laws for the peace, order and good government of Guyana “by a member of the executive who reflexively seeks refuge in a rigid and anachronistic interpretation of the doctrine of separation of powers long discarded by modern constitutional law thinking and concepts of good governance and democracy.” He said that it is also apparent that the executive “seems to be obstructing itself.”
He had also said that Williams’ resistance to bringing the act into operation is “not a satisfactory state of affairs.” Section (1) of the Act, he said, makes it clear that Williams is duty-bound to make it operational.
Previously explaining the importance of the Act, President of the Guyana Bar Association, Kamal Ramkarran had said that it allows aggrieved persons to file actions in the High Court and affords for a clear idea of what remedies are available against the state inclusive of injunctions which were not previously available.
The Act provides that the rules of procedure in respect of how the Court is to be approached by a litigant to access remedies under the Act are contained in the CPR, since the “rules of court,” which were extant at the time, made no provisions whatsoever for judicial review applications.