Thomas, Yasseen benefited from full gamut of legal redress -Ramson tells stay of execution hearing By Patrick Denny Stabroek News October 1, 1999 Only a ground outside the law could come to the assistance of condemned murderers, Noel Thomas and Abdool Saleem Yasseen, Attorney-General Charles Ramson SC, yesterday told the Court hearing arguments about whether their ex parte stay of execution should be continued. The case is being heard by Justice Winston Moore who granted the two a stay of execution on September 12. They were to be executed by hanging on September 13. Ramson yesterday told the Court that if ever there was a case which ran the gamut of redress in ordinary law, constitutional law and human rights law it was theirs (Thomas and Yasseen's) case. Responding to arguments raised by Stephen Fraser, Counsel for the condemned prisoners, Ramson said that they could not come to the court for redress in relation to the ruling of Justice Carl Singh as it threatened no breach of their fundamental rights as envisaged by Article 153 of the Constitution. Fraser had argued that Justice Singh's ruling ordering the Advisory Council on the Exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy to be convened within a specified period as well as that the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on Human Rights should be considered by the Advisory Council was ultra vires, null and void. However, Ramson noted that the plaintiffs cannot argue before the Court that the ruling gave them more benefits than they were entitled to enjoy under the constitution. He also urged Justice Moore not to entertain the challenge to Justice Singh's decision, quoting Lord Wilberforce who said that judges of the same division should not speak with different voices. He argued too that Justice Moore could refuse to entertain the challenge on the grounds that there were adequate remedies under existing law. In this case, he said that Thomas and Yasseen had not appealed Justice's Singh ruling. In response to Fraser's arguments that Thomas and Yasseen were entitled to be heard by the Advisory Council and that they should have been informed of the information about their case placed before it, Ramson said that no such right existed in law. Citing the UK Privy Council decisions in DeFreitas v Benny and the 1996 Reckley v Minister of Public Safety and Immigration, Ramson said that all of them supported his contention that there was no right to be heard before the Advisory Council. Also, he said that the ruling of Justice of Appeal, Prem Persaud of the Guyana Court of Appeal had also said that in their first appeal, that Thomas and Yasseen had no right to be heard nor were the proceedings of the Advisory Council amenable to review. Ramson cited the 1994 decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Wallen et another v Baptiste et al in which Justice of Appeal Hammel-Smith ruled that while a condemned prisoner has a right to the lawful exercise of power he had no legal remedy except where the Constitution so provides where the exercise is unlawful. Commenting on the allegation of bias which had been raised by Fraser as a result of statements made to the press by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon and himself, Ramson cited the same ruling. This ruling, Ramson explained, said that the subject of the issue before an Advisory Council is that of mercy and that this involves policy considerations. As a result Ramson argued that the Court is not entitled to take account of those statements. Dealing with Fraser's contention that his client had an absolute right to life under Article 40 and that this right was not circumscribed by the limitations placed on those rights mentioned at Articles 138-151, Ramson said that he disagreed. He contended that among other things that the rights were fettered by the limitation that their exercise should not be at the expense of another person's enjoyment of those rights as well and the interest of the public. Also, he said that Article 40 does not exist for enforcement of those rights as Article 138 does with its relevant limitation. Ramson contended that at least one uncontested fact in the case is that the condemned men were properly convicted and sentenced. As such, he argued that Article 138(1) which expressly contemplates the death penalty was the one under which the State is trying to execute Thomas and Yasseen. Ramson argued too that Article 40(2) and the last two lines of Article 40(1) circumscribe the fundamental rights and that this led to the question whether Thomas and Yasseen had a cause for action under Article 40. He contended that Articles 138-151 identify with greater specificity the rights provided for under Article 40 and as such using the test recommended in the first Reckley decision, the issue was one that should be struck out. The test recommended was whether or not there existed a real issue for determination even if it is demonstrated that the motion is bound to fail and that the matter should not be determined under the pressure of time which normally attended a motion for a stay of execution. As to the constitutionality of the death sentence, Ramson argued that that was a worn argument, pointing out that before 1966 and 1980, the Court was obliged to impose the death sentence on persons convicted of murder. He cited the 1984 decision of the Supreme Court of India in the Deen Dyal v Union of India et al case which ruled that the death penalty was not violative of the constitution. He also quoted the decision in Batchan Singh v the State of Punjab from the same Court, which ruled that the right to life was not absolute and the Courts had to implement the law in accordance with the intention of its framers. Ramson contended too, citing Sections 24 - 25 of the High Court Act which provide that a judge is entitled to have all issues raised litigated to finality, that the Court had the power to bring an end to litigation. He also cited the decision in the Deen Dyal case which said that litigation had to be brought to finality if the law is not to lose its credibility. A © page from: Guyana: Land of Six Peoples