Lawyers group raps senior judges over harsh remarks
THE Guyana Bar Association (GBA) has criticised judges in the highest court of the land for using harsh language in a row with a lower court saying their duty is to set an example to all Guyanese of respect for the law. The three judges of the Court of Appeal have accused two others in the lower Full Court of `eye-pass' (gross disrespect) because they in an unprecedented move, temporarily blocked the higher court from hearing an appeal related to the case of the two condemned murderers Abdool Saleem Yasseen and Noel Thomas. In a statement yesterday, the lawyers group backed the judges in the lower court contending that the "exercise by the High Court of its most sacred responsibility under the Constitution should never be criticised in intemperate language." "Such language has no place in our Republican Hall of Justice. We regret the language used in relation to two High Court judges who were simply performing their constitutional duty as they saw fit", the statement signed by association President, Mr Miles Fitzpatrick, S.C., said. Yasseen and Thomas are trying to avoid execution for killing Yasseen's younger brother in a 1987 dispute in Essequibo over property and have twice blocked their death by hanging. The state is challenging the latest halt to their execution but the Full Court this week temporarily blocked the Court of Appeal from hearing the matter until claims of alleged bias by the two condemned men against the Appellate Judges are determined by another judge. 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. The GBA noted that the Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana and under its provisions every person in Guyana is entitled to certain fundamental rights. "Any person who alleges that any of his or her fundamental rights as enshrined in Part 2 of that Constitution has been, is being, or is likely to be contravened may apply to the High Court for redress", it pointed out. According to the association, for that purpose the Constitution provides that the High Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made by such person, and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of any of the provisions "which enshrine and protect these fundamental rights". "There also can be no doubt that an appeal lies against such orders by the Full Court to the Court of Appeal, which is created by statute (there is no common law right of appeal) to review decisions of the High Court. "The two functions are separate. Our written constitution gives original jurisdiction in such matters to the High Court, and the rules of the High Court enable it to make ex parte (one-party) orders. "In this respect we should not confuse jurisdiction with courtesy and power with discretion", the GBA said. The lawyers group said High Court judges also have a duty in executing their functions to "recognise the dignity and status of their brethren in the Court of Appeal and treat them with courtesy." "Judicial administration by press release must cease. It is destroying the very fabric of our justice system", it said. "Judicial language must at all times uphold the high professional standards set by common law judges in the Commonwealth. The protocol of review in such delicate areas should be discussed between the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Bar, on the basis of a common understanding that the Constitution governs all of us and the original responsibilities of the High Court under it are the very pith and substance of the Rule of Law", it said. The association urged "temperate discussion" between representatives of the two sides to clarify "their respective roles in such matters." The genesis of the row was a motion before Justice Winston Moore by Yasseen and Thomas challenging the order that they be executed. Justice Moore struck out their motion on the grounds that it was frivolous and vexatious and against that order they appealed to the Full Court. The Full Court agreed with them and ordered that the matter be heard by the court and the Attorney General appealed against this order of the Full Court. When the hearing came on, the appellants filed a motion seeking to disqualify the Court of Appeal from sitting in the matter because of allegations of bias and lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the judges. A legal source yesterday felt there were "strange happenings" in the matter. Justice Bissessar, one of the judges who sat in the original Full Court, has had his tenure extended (an extendee) and yet Yasseen and Thomas did not object to his sitting, the source said. One ground challenging the Court of Appeal is that two judges are extendees. The source said a ground of appeal was that Justice Singh had wrongly ruled in an application before him but in spite of this, when Justice Singh sat on the appeal no objection was taken by the appellants to him. According to the source, Justice Singh was the junior judge in the Full Court hearing yet he gave the judgment while the President of the Court Justice Burch-Smith is not reported to have said anything. It was a remarkable feature also that the appeal lasted from l1.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. and Justice Singh could have read a prepared judgment containing about 10 pages, the legal source argued. He said Senior Counsel Ashton Chase and Attorney General Charles Ramson, lawyers representing the State and the Appellate Court judges, were in the precincts of the court on Tuesday but were not told that the appeal was fixed for hearing that afternoon. (GEORGE BARCLAY)
|