It has long been recognized that the judiciary and its decisions are not and should not be immune from criticisms. It’s quite a different matter to attribute motives to the judiciary that can be construed as improper such as failing to consider or to implement executive policy. Two contrasting approaches were displayed recently by Mr. Aubrey Heath-Retemeyer, Deputy Director of the State Agency for the Recovery of Assets (SARA) and Minister Khemraj Ramjattan, Minister of Public Security.
Mr. Aubrey Heath-Retemeyer’s, in an interview by KN on June 22, accused the judiciary of resisting the government’s drive to reduce corruption because they are not willing to facilitate SOCU or SARA. He said that there is a “stark disconnection between the judiciary and the thirst of the nation for an end to corruption…I feel that sometimes the legal system here…doesn’t want to be in step with the honest desire of the law enforcement people (like SOCU) to ensure that they get the job done. I feel that if there was a greater sense of urgency and understanding on the part of the legal people and the system, they would be more willing to facilitate what SOCU or SARA would be doing.”
The offence of misconduct in public office carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is what is known as a ‘common law’ offence and is triable on indictment. This means that it is is derived from judge-made law of England which Guyana has legally inherited. And it is triable by jury. The maximum penalty suggests that it is regarded as a very serious offence.
While the offence can be traced back to the 13th century, a definition, given by Chief Justice Lord Mansfield in the 1783 case of R v Rembridge emphasized its importance: “…. first that a man accepting an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit, is answerable criminally to the King for misbehavior in his office; …. Secondly, where there is a breach of trust, fraud or imposition in a matter concerning the public, though as between individuals it would be actionable, yet as between the King and the subject it is indictable. That such should be the rule is essential to the existence of the country.”
At the invitation of the Chief Justice, the Hon. Madame Roxane George-Wiltshire, I made the welcoming presentation on the occasion of the admission of four lawyers to the Inner Bar as Senior Counsel on Friday last. This is what I said:
It is an honour and a privilege to welcome to the Inner Bar the four Senior Counsel whose appointments were announced on December 30, 2017. According to a statement from the Ministry of the Presidency, President David Granger “having considered their high quality of service in the legal profession and with confidence in their knowledge of the law” appointed Kalam Azad Juman Yassin, Josephine Whitehead, Fitz Le Roy Peters and Andrew Mark Fitzgerald Pollard as Senior Counsel with effect from January 1, 2018.
By Article IV(1) of the Geneva Agreement of 1966, the Governments of Guyana and Venezuela committed to choosing one of the means of peaceful settlement provided for by article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN), if the Mixed Commission did not arrive at a full agreement for the settlement of the controversy within four years. Judicial settlement was one of those means under article 33. But the part of the article providing for the parties to choose the means of settlement is qualified by Article V. It provides that they are to refer the decision of the means of settlement to an “appropriate international organ on which they both agree,” but failing agreement “to the Secretary General of the United Nations.”
After the conclusion of the mandate of the Mixed Commission, the Governments of Guyana, Venezuela and the United Kingdom entered into an agreement known as the Port of Spain Protocol in June, 1970, which suspended the operation of Article IV of the Geneva Agreement for twelve years. This meant effectively that the formal search under Article IV for a resolution of the controversy was suspended for the period. Guyana and Venezuela undertook to “explore all possibilities of better understanding between them.”
Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran SC has successfully represented Trinidad High Commissioner to India, Dave Persad, in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in London, United Kingdom, in the case of Dave Persad (Appellant) v Anirude Singh (Respondent) which was heard on June 21.
The case pertained to a claim by Singh against Persad in 2002 for arrears of rent, damages for breach of covenant and mesne profits arising from a breach of a lease agreement under which Persad’s business premises were leased from Singh at Manzanilla Road, Mayaro, Trinidad.