Nandlall contempt motion was malicious
September 17 2018
…AG says not surprised it was withdrawn
ATTORNEY General Basil Williams said he was not surprised at the withdrawal of the contempt proceedings against him by Anil Nandlall, saying that the charge in the first place was malicious and was a flagrant abuse of the court process.
Nandlall on Friday withdrew the proceedings, saying that he had achieved his objective in getting the AG to activate the Judicial Review Act. Nandlall withdrew the proceedings when he appeared in the High Court before Justice Navendra Singh on the grounds that the Judicial Review Act is now in effect in keeping with instructions of the Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire. On May 28, 2018, the chief justice (ag) had ordered that the order to enforce the Judicial Review Act be signed no later than July 31, 2018. “Nandlall finally surrenders after his malicious attempt to mislead the citizenry was exposed by my application to strike out his contempt motion libelling me …” Williams said.
When the chief justice (ag) ordered that the Order to enforce the Judicial Review Act, be signed no later than July 31, 2018, the attorney general had filed a Notice of Appeal on June 13, 2018, to appeal her decision. That was followed by an interim Stay of Execution of the Judgment and Orders of the chief justice (ag), as well as a Stay of Execution of the Judgment and Orders at the Court of Appeal.
“The order to operationalise the Judicial Review Act by July 31, 2018, was only brought to the attention of the Respondent by the law officers of the state just before the decision of the Honourable Justice Rafiq Kkan, S.C, which was rendered on the 9th day of August, 2018,” the attorney general had explained in his application to strike out the contempt proceedings. He had explained that upon learning of the pending decision of Justice Khan, he immediately directed that an application for an urgent hearing of the appeal be filed. That application was filed on August 8, 2018.
The Ministerial Order for the operationalisation of the Judicial Review Act was signed on August 15, 2018 and published in the Official Gazette (Extraordinary) on August 16, 2018, the Legal Affairs Minister pointed out, noting that he was at the time seeking to comply with the Order made by the chief justice (ag). “The existence of the Interim Stay was never brought to the attention of the respondent or the chief parliamentary counsel, which resulted in Ministerial Order No. 28 of 2018 dated the 15th day of August, 2018 and published in the Official Gazette (Extraordinary) on the 16th day of August, 2018, being brought into effect after July 31, 2018,” Minister Williams further explained. That Order, which sought to have the Judicial Review Act take effect from January, 2019, was revoked.
A new Ministerial Order signed by the attorney general was published in the Official Gazette (Extraordinary) on August 27, 2018, in an effort to “diligently” comply with Chief Justice (ag) George-Wiltshire’s order, this time, in keeping with the appointed date – July 31, 2018. “During July and August 2018 the Respondent (AG) was facilitating nationwide anti-corruption sensitisation campaigns throughout Guyana; conducting anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AMLCFT) sensitisation seminars, and campaigned countrywide in view of the PNCR Congress to be held from the 17th to the 19th day of August in Georgetown and as such there is no proof that the Honourable Minister was evading personal service, as falsely claimed by the applicant [Nandlal],” Minister Williams stated.
He added too that Nandlall’s claim of service of the Order on the staff of the Ministry of Legal Affairs and the Attorney General’s Chambers does not in law or fact amount to personal service of the Order on him. The attorney general argued that without effecting a personal service of the Order made by the chief justice (ag) on him, Nandlall on August 20, 2018, instituted contempt proceedings by way of a Fixed Date Application with supporting Affidavit despite having full knowledge of the action taken by him (as the AG) to issue the commencement order. “It is trite law that the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed to hear an application for contempt for breach of a court order, where ex facie there is no evidence of personal service of the Order on the Respondent,” Minister Williams argued, contending that Nandlall’s application amounts to a flagrant abuse and misuse of the processes of the court.
