| Related Links: | Articles on capital punishment |
| Letters Menu | Archival Menu |
Justice Legall scheduled August 18 to hear arguments on the validity of an additional supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, allegedly without leave of the Court.
The documentation, to which objection was raised, seeks to put in the pleadings a letter from then Chancellor Cecil Kennard, who was a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), to President Jagdeo.
The correspondence referred to vacancies on the Bench of the Court of Appeal and offered the President advice on how he should proceed to fill them.
Justice Legall said yesterday the submissions he is to hear would help him determine whether or not the testament could be deemed as properly filed.
Some weeks ago, the same judge rejected a submission by Senior Counsel Ashton Chase, for the respondents, that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the motion.
Justice Legall ruled that he has the authority to adjudicate on, among other things, whether the appoinments of Justices of Appeal Claudette Singh, Nandram Kissoon and Ian Chang as well as Chief Justice Carl Singh were in accord with how the JSC advised the President.
Yasseen and Thomas, who have been sentenced to death more than once for the murder of another Yasseen, are moving by originating summons under Article 128 of the Constitution that says judges, other than the Chancellor and Chief Justice, shall be appointed by the President, acting in accordance with advice from the JSC.
The two killers, who have a petition pending in the Court of Appeal, are contending that the three Justices of appeal were not appointed in keeping with the Constitution, because, according to a member of the JSC, they had advised that Justices Kissoon, Chang and Carl Singh be appointed to act as Justices of Appeal and not to the substantive positions as the President did.
The applicants are also alleging that no advice was tendered to President Jagdeo, by the JSC, in relation to the appointment of Justice of Appeal Claudette Singh.
Justice Legall said that the main contention of Yasseen and Thomas is that the Bench to hear their appeal includes three judges who were not lawfully appointed and cannot sit.
The prisoners are claiming, too, that, contrary to the provisions of Article 128, the three Justices of Appeal are the creation of the President, a political figure, who did not act on the advice of the JSC and the appointees cannot be considered independent and impartial as required by Article 144 of the Constitution.