Manupulation of the Justice System in Guyana by the Corrupt PPP/C is blantanty manifested in this decision to fire  Magistrate Geeta Chandan – Edmond.

Re: Edmond received a dismissal letter from the JSC on February 20 – the same day she was scheduled to sentence Sam Hinds Jr, the son of Prime Minister Samuel Hinds.

Sacked Magistrate to challenge JSC’s decision

Days after being issued marching orders by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Attorney-at-Law Geeta Chandan-Edmond, has said that she plans to fight back against the decision. She views the decision as an act of injustice.
Chandan-Edmond, who had been dispensing matters at the busy Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, received a dismissal letter from the relatively new Commission on February 20, last. Through her lawyer, Nigel Hughes, at a press conference on Friday, she told reporters that she will be filing a High Court action seeking prerogative relief next week.
Breaking the silence on the allegations she faced, Chandan-Edmond said that she was made to answer several allegations by the JSC, dating back to some six years. She said on February 13, last, she received a package from the JSC inviting her for a hearing on February 18. Two days later she was dismissed.

Attorneys-at-Law Nigel Hughes, Geeta Chandan-Edmond, Joel Edmond and James Bond at the Press Conference

She explained that allegations include her absence from an optional Magistrates’ meeting, medical leave during the period June 5-7, 2013, absence of record due to sick leave, inability to deliver a decision in at least 19 matters, loss of minutes book, failure to respond to queries by immediate functional supervisor, Chief Magistrate Sewnarine-Beharry and departure from Guyana on January 20, 2013 without approval and consequential absence from a Magisterial engagement.
Chandan-Edmond discussed each of the allegations with the media, reasoning that there was no solid basis for her dismissal. “These are the only allegations that I had to answer…There were no allegations of corruption or illegality leveled against me. I gave the nation ten years of service with dedication.”
The former Magistrate told members of the media that she finds the JSC decision highly unusual and unfair.
Her lawyer said that the Judiciary, a fundamental pillar of society, has a rather fragile reputation for protecting the rights of the citizens and even more fragile reputation of being insulated from political influence.
“I believe the time has come where we perhaps need to look at the constitution of the Judicial Service Commission,” he said. According to Hughes, the society continues to move from crisis to crisis and the institution of the Judiciary is the one least expected to face allegations in the form of influence.
“The facts will speak for themselves but I certainly think that it is a little more than passing strange that the day that the high official’s son was due to be sentenced, the Magistrate had her services terminated for allegations dating back to 2009,” Hughes said.
He noted that of concern was the JSC which comprises two of the highest ranking members of the judiciary acted both as the complainant and adjudicator of the allegations against Chandan-Edmond.
He likened that to asking the police to investigate, prosecute and judge in a matter.
“The time has come where the termination of services of Magistrates or Judicial officers ought to be conducted by a body other than the JSC or by a differently constituted JSC.” Hughes lamented that the fears of protection of the rights of persons accused of infractions have clearly been challenged.
Hughes told members of the media that they will be filing court action next week. “We intend to pursue that action all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice because we believe that’s where it will be properly determined.”
He lamented that the fact that two members of the JSC determine the promotion of Judges, they suspect that the CCJ will be their best shot at a fair ruling.
Asked about the action they intend to file, Hughes said they are seeking after the prerogative relief. He explained to members of the media that the application is basically one to review the decision of the JSC on various grounds, one of which was that she did not have a fair hearing.
“There was only one person who was leveling the allegations against Chandan-Edmond and that person was part of the body that ultimately sat and was going to determine her fate,” he said.
Hughes went on to say that there were several other fundamental and procedural difficulties that were breached in the proceedings against the former Magistrate. He explained that the only body the JSC does not influence is the CCJ and they, in that light, expect a result that would be fair.
Also present at the press conference was Attorney-at-Law, James Bond, who said that the allegations outlined by Chandan-Edmond and the way she addressed them showed that the adjudicators in the matter have used those allegations to make it appear that she is guilty of serious misconduct.
Bond said that that smacks disrespect to the office Chandan-Edmond held. “Magistrates, are the most hardworking people in the judiciary,” he said.
The lawyer added that there is no reason given that he or any member of the legal fraternity would say that warrants her immediate dismissal.
He emphasised that some of the matters are there since 2009 and questioned how she could be dismissed at this point on those allegations. “We think this smacks of disrespect to our Magistrates,” he said.
Citing the fate of Attorneys-at-Law Omeyana Hamilton, Leslie Sobers, Octave Hamilton and Chandra Sohan who all sat on the bench but were removed, Bond told members of the Media that Chandan-Edmond is not the only Magistrate who had been dealt with a “high and capricious hand” by the judicial powers.
Bond opined that the listed Magistrates were all fired for reasons that did not warrant dismissal.
Bond called on the members of the legal fraternity, the Bar Association, Women Lawyers’ Association, the Magistrates’ Association, and Judges’ Association to stand up and support the members of the legal fraternity: the Magistrates.
Also responding to reports that he had appeared before his wife, the former Magistrate’s husband Attorney-at-Law Joel Edmond said that at no point had he ever done so. “I have never appeared before my wife, the then Magistrate, in any court,” he emphasised.
He said there are persons asking whether that is the reason his wife was dismissed, though his name was ever mentioned in the allegations leveled against her.
Chandan-Edmond served ten years as a Magistrate prior to her dismissal.