Judges told to remain silent
by George Barclay
THERE was a lull in the battle of the courts yesterday with judges advised to remain silent on the matter and lawyers who had an emergency meeting on the issue last night are expected today to call for an end to the war of words. The row is over a lower court temporarily restraining the highest court of the land (the Court of Appeal) from hearing an appeal by the State Wednesday against a decision by a judge to block the scheduled execution of two condemned murderers. The Court of Appeal slammed the Tuesday ruling by the Full Court as "eye-pass" (gross disrespect) and said it was considering going ahead with hearing the appeal by the State. Convicted murderers Abdool Yasseen and Noel Thomas have twice escaped hanging through legal blocks since they got the death sentence for killing Yasseen's younger brother in 1987 in a dispute over property. Their latest bid to escape the hangman's noose triggered the unprecedented ruling by a lower court against the Court of Appeal pitting judges versus judges. Chief Justice Desiree Bernard yesterday said she had not yet reassigned a judge to replace Justice B.S. Roy who had disqualified himself from hearing the claim by Yasseen and Thomas that the Appellate Court judges were biased and lacked independence and impartiality to hear the appeal by the State. Neither the Full Court nor other High Court judges would comment on the issue when contacted yesterday. The Chronicle understands that the Chief Justice met her judges yesterday and advised them not to talk on the subject. The Chief Justice herself said "No comment". The Guyana Bar Association called an emergency meeting late yesterday to try to find a solution to the problem. A spokesman for the association last night told the Chronicle they will issue a statement today pointing out that the High Court has jurisdiction in the current matter. The statement will also call on those concerned to refrain from a war of words, a source said. The Appellate Court constituted by Chancellor of the Judiciary, Mr Cecil Kennard, Justice of Appeal, Mr Lennox Perry and Justice of Appeal, Mr Prem Persaud Wednesday said it was considering the implications of the Full Court ruling. It objected to the move by the Full Court comprised of Justice Desmond Burch-Smith and Justice Carl Singh to proceed with the matter up to late Tuesday night without giving the senior judges an opportunity through their lawyer to respond to the allegations of bias. The Appellate Court charged that this tended to show that the lower court had its own agenda. Justice Perry said the action taken by the Full Court was not only disrespectful to the judges but `eye-pass' in relation to the Guyana Court of Appeal. Chancellor Kennard declared: "We are at present studying the implications of the Full Court Order. If we come to the conclusion that the Order binds us we will abide by the ruling." "If on the other hand we find otherwise, we will begin hearing the appeal on Monday", he said. Some lawyers yesterday argued that under the Constitution of Guyana the High Court had original jurisdiction in constitutional matters. Mr Miles Fitzpatrick, S.C., said the Full Court which is a part of the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the application about the judge's refusal to grant the stay of the hearing. However, he added, "Whether the Full Court is wrong or not, that is another matter." Mr Rex Mc Kay, S.C. recalled a case which he said although it did not involve the Full Court, could be used as a precedent to show that the Court of Appeal as presently constituted should decline to hear the matter. He said the case related to an appeal brought by Aubrey Norton against then President Janet Jagan which came up before the Court of Appeal in April 1998. That court was constituted by Justice of Appeal Maurice Churaman, President, Justice of Appeal Lennox Perry and Justice of Appeal Prem Persaud. Mc Kay said he told the court he proposed to raise objection to Justices of Appeal Perry and Persaud because they were not within the meaning of the constitution independent and impartial, in as much as they had to rely on President Jagan for their extension to remain as members of the Court of Appeal. And since President Jagan at the time was involved as a respondent they ought not to sit because they cannot be independent and impartial, he said. After hearing counsel for the respondent, Chairman Churaman, Mc Kay said, adjourned the appeal until the hearing and determination of the motion which was filed in the High Court.
|