Full Court accuses appellate Bench of ridicule, humiliatio
THE so-called battle of the Courts, which erupted following a Full Court order restraining the Court of Appeal from sitting in a Yasseen and Thomas case, continued yesterday in the High Court. Justices Desmond Burch-Smith and Carl Singh were hearing an aplication by the Attorney General and three Justices of Appeal when they accused the higher Bench of pouring ridicule and humiliation on them. At the time, counsel for condemned murderers Abdool Saleem Yasseen and Noel Thomas, Mr Stephen Fraser, who had previously succeeded in securing the restraint on the appellate Court, alleging bias, was presenting a motion in which it is contended that Chancellor Cecil Kennard and other Justices of Appeal Lennox Perry and Prem Persaud are in contempt and ought not to be heard until they purge themselves. Justices Burch-Smith and Singh did not rule on the issue but granted the applicants leave to file affidavits in answer to the Attorney General and the Justices of Appeal. However, when the matter was called, Justice Burch-Smith, presiding, deprecated the attitude of the Justices of Appeal in making "uncalled for remarks" about the Full Court. Sitting with him, Justice Singh said:"For myself, I would like to say that I, at all times in the execution of my judicial functions, recognise and respect the dignity and status of the judges of the Court of Appeal. "But, in according our bothers in the Court of Appeal the courtesies and respect due to them, that does not, in my view, give to them a licence to pour ridicule and humiliation upon judges of the lower Court when a decision given by a lower Court does not meet with their approval. "I do not wish to emphasise the inelegance of expressions employed to convey the sentiments of that Court, that we in the Full Court, in this matter, were less than respectful to them. "I noticed, from reports in the Press, the reaction of the Court of Appeal to our order and, from those reports, I gathered that the Court intended to consider the implications of our ruling and, indeed, that Court adjourned to consider those implications. "But I was particularly peeved that, before considering the implications of our ruling, we became, quite unjustifiably, the subject of harsh criticisms, ridicule and humiliation. "It is in this context that I find especially appealing the statement by the (Guyana) Bar Association, in a Press release, to the effect that the exercise by the High Court of its most sacred responsibility should never be seen as making it or us a laughing stock, or as a stab in the back or as `eye pass'. "To do so is to help perpetuate that colonial culture in which the servant must ascertain the pleasure of his master before addressing his task. "The only master a judge in an independent Guyanese Republic should have is the Consltitution. "Finally, I wish to say that the only agenda I have is to be fair and just to all who appear before me and, in this case, to the applicant judges of the Court of Appeal and the respondents," Justice Singh declared. Appearing for the judges of the highest tribunal yesterday was Senior Counsel Ashton Chase, who was armed with a supporting attestation sworn to by Mr Rishi Persaud, an attorney-at-law and Clerk to the Chancellor. According to that deposition, material disclosures were not made and, in failing to do so, the edict by the Full Court should be discharged. 
|