Judge exercised enormous amount of patience with Mr Williams

Dear Editor,

The contretemps in Court a few days ago between Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams would, to the layman, appear trivial but for others they would be flummoxed.

When examined through the prism of a Layman the ‘continuous protests and arguments’ on the part of the AG versus the principled and judicious stand adopted by Justice Persaud in effect, goes to the heart of legal practice within the meaning of the judicial system of Guyana.

According to newspaper reports, the bone of contention at the time was that ‘there were glaring errors in the court documents filed by the AG challenging two of the High Court decisions in the no-confidence case currently before the Court of Appeal.’

The absence of the names of all the respondents in the cases that were to be heard on that day and the obstinacy of Mr Williams to not heed the advice of the court is what appears to have provoked the ire of Justice Persaud.

Justice Persaud’s rebuke to the AG was reminiscent of the wrath many a hapless attorney- atlaw was bound to experience were they to come unprepared at any time before Justice Akbar Khan aka the ‘Angry God.’

In this case, the Attorney General was at his wits end as he tried in vain to persuade the Judge to bend the rules of the Court’s proceedings to accommodate his untidy and useless submissions.

From a Layman’s perspective the AG in expressing his disagreement with Justice Persaud appeared to be on the borderline of contempt of court when he told the Judge in open Court, “I disagree with you.”

And contrary to the Judge’s advice Mr. Williams in pursuit of a political objective, insisted that the appeal was “properly filed” when the Judge had determined ‘early o’clock’ that it was not.

Moreover, even when the Judge pointed out to Williams that a single judge could not amend the first Notice of Appeal and that the court’s full bench (three judges) was required, the AG’s retort was “How is this a fundamental issue where there is a simple omission of a party?”

‘Fundamental’ it was indeed, but amazingly, the learned, silk-robed AG could not, for reasons known only to him, see eye to eye with the distinguished Judge. But what was most disturbing on

that eventful day in Guyana’s Court of Appeal was the AG’s astounding rhetorical question, “What is our courts coming to?” as he sought to make a totally erroneous, if not irrelevant reference to Mr. Charrandass Persaud’s vote in support of the no-confidence motion passed in the National Assembly.

It is remarkable indeed that even though these occurrences took place in the Judge’s domain in which he has the power to exercise complete control, he chose to exercise an enormous amount of patience, if not tolerance with Mr Williams.

Further, let us not overlook the fact that the judge was at pains to offer the soundest of advice to the AG when he suggested to Mr Williams that ‘all he had to do was to withdraw the first appeal and refile the summonses on both matters.’ Falling victim once again to his narcissistic foibles, Mr Williams carried on with his charade in court much to the annoyance of the judge who had reached the nadir of his tolerance level.

The result was quite obvious. Mr Williams was admonished by the Judge who told him; “We are wasting time here. This is a very simple matter. Let’s be practical and let’s get on with it rather than wasting time and arguing all over the place.”

Summing up the judge declared, “The rules are the rules. I didn’t write the rules. I am ruling that I have no jurisdiction to amend (the rules).”

As Justice Harold Bollers would have said to members of the Elections Commission during his tenure as Chairman of the Commission “If you want to change the rules take them back to the National Assembly.”

The neutrality of the court must be upheld at all times and politicians clothed in silk must not succeed in transforming judges into legislators.

Yours faithfully, Clement J. Rohee