Ministry of Legal Affairs

11 years without a lease - The Chronicle Newspaper - 2nd November, 2018

Details

Published: 02 November 2018

Former President Donald Ramotar on his way to be cross examined in the High Court by the Attorney General, Basil Williams. In this photo, he is accompanied by his attorney, Anil Nandlall (Photos by Samuel Maughn )

…Ramotar admits CJRCI occupied Red House without a lease
…confirms Jagdeo rejected applications thrice
…says his signature was not required to validate agreement

FORMER President Donald Ramotar, while dodging the question of whether Bharrat Jagdeo had rejected three applications for the leasing of Red House to the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre Incorporated (CJRCI) as president, admitted in the High Court that CJRCI had occupied the historic building in the absence of a valid lease.

Attorney General Basil Williams entering the court room on Thursday at the High Court

The former Guyanese President, who served from November 2011-May, 2015, was grilled in the High Court as he was being cross-examined by the Attorney General Basil Williams on Thursday in a case brought against the present government over its decision to revoke the purported 99-year lease from CJRCI.

In the matter being presided by Acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire, Ramotar, in the presence of his attorney, Anil Nandlall, confirmed his sworn affidavit dated January 30, 2017 and maintained that he approved the 99-year lease of the Red House, situated in High Street Kingston, to the CJRCI.

The immediate past President told the court that after the CJRCI was incorporated as a not-for-profit company in 2000 by himself – a founding member, and the late former President Janet Jagan, and her daughter Nadira Jagan-Brancier, he explored the possibility of entering into a lease agreement with the government to access the Red House. It was explained that it was the intention of the founding members to establish a library and research facility to showcase the work of the late President, Cheddi Jagan.

According to Ramotar, at the time, he was unaware that the Red House falls under the purview of National Trust of Guyana. Jogging the memory of the former President with supporting evidence, the attorney general asked him to confirm, one, whether the Red House Lease Agreement was signed on March 30, 2012. Ramotar responded in the positive.

It was at this stage that the attorney general sought to question the former President on the Chairman of the Management Committee of the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre Incorporated (CJRCI), Hydar Ally, but was met with objection by Nandlall.

Nandlall, in his client’s defence, told the court that the witness was appearing in the capacity of former President but even before he could have concluded his statement, the chief justice made it clear that Ramotar inserted himself into the matter when he tendered a sworn affidavit. Nandlall, at the start of the hearing, had raised the issue of presidential immunity but was reminded that the former President was not charged or sued but rather is simply a witness in the matter.

The chief justice also cautioned the attorney general about his line of questioning, stating that he cannot question Ramotar on information provided to the Court by Ally.
Adjusting his question, the attorney general asked Ramotar whether the Cheddi Jagan Research Institute in 2000 took possession of the Red House, though there was no finalised lease agreement.

Ramotar, while responding in the positive, said though there was no lease agreement in place between 2000 and 2011; approval had been granted to occupy the Red House. “I am not aware of what is stated in the court document but I am aware that they (CJRCI) entered (Red House) before the lease,” Ramotar told the Court while adding that he could not recall the exact date.

Jogging his memory again in the process, the attorney general then grilled the former President on an application made to the Commissioner of Lands and Surveys on May 2, 2006 for the lease of the Red House. Ramotar had filed the application on behalf of the centre. Though confirming his signature on the application, Ramotar told the Court that he was not involved in the day to day running of the institute. Interjecting again, Nandlall objected to the line of questioning put to the witness, noting that the issue at hand was the validity of the 2012 lease, and not the undertakings of the research institute prior to 2012.

Fielding another round of questions from the attorney general, who attempted to ascertain whether the then President, Bharrat Jagdeo, in 2006 had rejected CJRCI’s application, Ramotar maintained that the institute had gotten permission to occupy the Red House. “What I can say is that the institute was there with permission but I cannot say why Mr. Jagdeo did not sign the lease,” he said while adding that “I don’t know if that is disapproval but he did not sign.”

A second application to lease the Red House was made in 2010 but as in the case of the first application, it was not sanctioned by then President, Jagdeo. On January 11, 2011, a third application was filed. The attorney general repeatedly suggested to Ramotar that his predecessor had refused to sanction the applications.

“I don’t know that he disapproved….I will say that he did not sign. I don’t know that he disapproved,” Ramotar repeatedly said, in his response to the questions put to him.
In November, 2011 the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) had once again won the General and Regional Elections, and Ramotar was elected President. The attorney general put to Ramotar that as President, following in the footsteps of Jagdeo, he did not sign the lease, though it was granted by the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC) on March 30, 2012.

Responding in the negative, Ramotar explained he approved the application by the CJRCI for the leasing of the Red House when it was brought to him along with several other applications by the then commissioner of lands.
“I did not go looking for the application,” the former President told the Court. He noted too that though he did not sign onto the application, he had given his approval. “I didn’t sign the approval,” Ramotar maintained while explaining that he had sanctioned the application by instructing the then Commissioner of Lands and Survey to approve it.

In summing up his arguments, the attorney general maintained that the Red House lease agreement was initiated without the approval of either the President of the Day or The National Trust of Guyana, which is in contravention of Section 10 of the Lands Department Act Chapter 59:01, rendering it void. Nandlall, however, in his rebuttal, argued that the legislation speaks to “sanction” but does mandate a written signature or a written approval.

The lease entered by the then Commissioner of Lands and Survey on behalf of the Government of Guyana, and by Ralph Ramkarran, S.C., on behalf of the CJRCI, was issued under Section 10 of the Lands Department Act, Chapter 59:01 for property with a duration of 99 years, commencing on January 1, 2012 at an annual rental of $12,000 for the first three years, and with the proviso that the government could revise the annual rent payable at the end of every three years.

The Red House is established in The National Trust of Guyana Monuments Register as a Public Building/National Monument/Heritage Site.
On Thursday, the attorney general was accompanied by a battery of lawyers including the Solicitor General, Kim Kyte-Thomas. The current Commissioner of Lands and Surveys, Trevor Benn was present along with his legal team.

The High Court will make its final ruling on December 17, 2018.

‘Dignity for our children’ - The Chronicle Newspaper - 1st November, 2018

Details

Published: 02 November 2018

A modern Children’s Court was opened at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday. This Adrian Narine photo shows the courtroom

…AG assures as Children’s Court officially opened

THE Children’s Court was officially opened on Wednesday, with Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Basil Williams, SC, saying government has a special responsibility to children as they are among society’s most vulnerable.

Williams represented President David Granger at the event which took place at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court in the presence of members of the judiciary, magistracy, diplomatic corps and other invitees.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) partnered with government and other stakeholders to bring the court into being; similar courts will be established in Berbice and Essequibo.

Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams (Adrian Narine Photos)

“As I noted on the 26th, April 2018, at the 87th Sitting of the 11th Parliament of Guyana and during the debate of the Juvenile Justice Bill, the way we treat our weakest members of society has always been a measure of our society. Indeed, it is considered a test of our humanity and civilisation,” the attorney general said.

He contended that there is no better way for a nation to demonstrate its respect for human dignity than by making appropriate provisions for the protection of its children and for securing their best interests.
He said establishment of the Children’s Court is a manifestation of the importance which the Cooperative Republic of Guyana attaches to the principle of the “best interests of the child.”

The legal affairs minister explained that the “best interests of the child” is a cardinal principle of customary international law. Article 3 (1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, states: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative or legislative bodies, the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan is assisted by acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings- Edwards in unveiling the plaque to open the court

The minister said Guyana has enshrined this principle within its supreme law, the ‘Constitution’ and in other legislation such as the Custody, Contact, Guardianship and Maintenance Act of 2011, the Protection of Children Act of 2009, the Adoption of Children Act of 2009 and the Juvenile Justice Act of 2018. He underscored that the Juvenile Justice Act of 2018 effects many of the provisions contained in the Guidelines for Action on Children in the Criminal Justice System, which was adopted by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

Minister Williams said among the measures which can be utilised for ‘diversion’, under the Juvenile Justice Act, are: an oral or written apology; placing the juvenile under supervision and guidance; counselling and therapy; compulsory attendance at a vocational or educational institution; restitution; compensation; community service; and warnings or referrals.

REFORM RATHER THAN PUNISHMENT
“A juvenile justice system should be characterised, not by extreme punishment, but by sentences that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the juvenile for that offence. It should be underscored by consideration of alternatives to custodian sentences,” the attorney general said.

He continued: “It is vital to ensuring a more rehabilitative and restorative system of juvenile justice. It is essential to promoting the best interests of our children. I commend the chancellor of the judiciary for the great dispatch with which this court has been established. I welcome its establishment. This is a red letter day in our judicial history.”

Juvenile justice
Meanwhile, Public Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan said the opening of the court is essential to ensuring that the objectives of the Juvenile Justice Act are advanced and achieved.

He explained that the administration has not gotten the temporary facilities to deal with juveniles who have to be remanded; but funds have been requested in the 2019 budget to make such a reality.

Adding that a juvenile justice director and two assistants have been sought, Ramjattan said approval for their appointments will be done at Cabinet. “There will be enhanced training programmes for the people who will be overseeing and administering the new justice juvenile regime. There are other things that have to be done that I need not mention,” the public security minister said.

The minister said in 2019, it is envisioned that such courts will be built in Berbice and Essequibo, while proceedings against juveniles must attract pre-charge screening, which will be done by the director of public prosecutions (DPP). “The DPP must give written consent to any private individual who wishes to institute a charge against a juvenile. That is in the hand of the constitutional office… A juvenile has the right to retain and instruct counsel; and under the act that young person can also get free legal advice,” Ramjattan said.

Improving access to justice
UNICEF Representative to Guyana and Suriname Sylvie Fouet congratulated all the players for their role in improving access to justice for juveniles. She said UNICEF understands that there is a serious commitment that comes with a budget and in 2019, there will be support for expansion of the courts outside of Georgetown.

The UNICEF representative said the new court is expected to enable children to benefit from training and education instead of incarceration.
Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards said the aim of the court and Juvenile Justice Act is for rehabilitation, education and reintegration into society.
The head of the judiciary said visiting the court when a child is in conflict with the law must be a last resort.

“The system is there to further the well-being of the children and therefore the best interest of the child shall be the paramount consideration when making decisions about the juvenile,” Justice Cummings-Edwards said.

An estimated $590M is expected to be procured for Guyana to run a child-friendly criminal justice system in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.

Guyana’s Juvenile Offender’s Act was enacted in 1931; but in order for it to reflect international juvenile justice standards in accordance with the Beijing rules and the Riyadh Guidelines, extensive recommendations were made facilitating the Juvenile Justice Act 2018.

AG raps Nandlall for attacking judges - The Chronicle Newspaper - 21st October, 2018

Details

Published: 23 October 2018

Attorney General Basil Williams

— says assault on judiciary scandalous, must be condemned

ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams, SC, on Saturday took offence at what he called “the reckless and churlish attack on the judiciary” by Attorney Mohabir Anil Nandlall, the PPP front-bencher who lost his appeal against the appointment of Justice (Rt’d) James Patterson as chairman of GECOM.

The Appeal Court last Thursday unanimously upheld the ruling of Chief Justice (ag), Roxanne George-Wiltshire that President Granger’s appointment of Justice Patterson as chairman of GECOM was constitutional; and even suggested that on the first instance of a defective list, the Guyanese leader could have activated the proviso which allowed him to select someone unilaterally.

Another of the judges even went as far as saying that the opposition leader could not have expected the Head of State to choose from a list where “one or two or three persons, as the case may be, are not acceptable to him.”

Thursday’s decision in the Appeal Court has dealt another blow to the opposition’s efforts to overturn the decision. However, Nandlall has taken umbrage with the decision and has stated his displeasure publicly.

“While this latest attack is not surprising, given his penchant to making threats against a media house and other indiscretions, his crude assault on members of the judiciary–three of whom are women–must be roundly condemned,” Williams said in a statement issued Saturday afternoon.

Attorney Anil Nandlall

Williams quoted Nandlall’s comments to members of the media, which stated thusly: “First of all let me say that I am not surprised, I am disappointed but not surprised. This is yet another case that shows how far more our judiciary has to mature, because it is a part of a trend. All the cases that are deeply political are decided in a political way and that has to change.” He then followed up with a letter to the press, further castigating the judges.

According to Williams, these statements, when taken with Nandlall’s labelling of the learned Chief Justice George-Wiltshire’s ruling as being adventurous in the Court of Appeal and him “describing two Barbadian Queen’s Counsel who are more senior to him as aliens, aptly sum up this ex-attorney general’s disrespect.”

DISCOURTEOUS
The AG added: “It however has not escaped the attention of the attorney general that Mr Nandlall has over the years been given great latitude by the court and over time has become discourteous and disrespectful, two traits that are often exhibited by the party he represents.”

Williams recalled Nandlall falsely accusing him of threatening to kill a sitting judge, which turned out to be completely untrue. He said despite this, the former attorney general was allowed to escape sanction by the court.

“As attorney general, I fully support objective comments on judgments handed down by the courts; but these must be measured and respectful without seeking to scandalise the court by describing its decision as political and that the judges who made the decision as [sic] immature. This amounts to personal invective and abuse of the judges,” Williams asserted.

He stated that “Mr Nandlall is becoming unhinged and for a man who has been claiming that other people are losing cases, he seems to have suffered a complete meltdown on losing another major case.”

“Perhaps this experience in losing this case regarding the appointment of the GECOM chairman should enlighten him that in the practice of law before the courts, you win some and you lose some.  However, what is very frightening, is the serious deficiency in Mr Nandlall’s psychological framework for him to believe that he will find the courts to rule in his favour despite the plain and literal language of Article 161 (2), that the appointment of the Chairman of GECOM is to be done by the President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and not the opposition leader.  Therefore, as head of the bar, I again roundly condemn his behaviour and remain hopeful that the usual commentators and the Guyana Bar Association will see it fit to do same.”

EU, AG Chambers discuss project to boost criminal justice system - The Chronicle Newspaper - 20th October, 2018

Details

Published: 23 October 2018

From (L-R) Mr. Philippe Coessens, Minister Counsellor and Head of Political Press & Information; Ambassador Jernej Videtic, Head of the European Union Delegation to Guyana; Attorney General and Minister of legal Affairs, Mr. Basil Williams, SC, MP; Deputy Chief Parliamentary Counsel Ms. Joann Bond; and Chief Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Charles Fung-a-Fat

AMBASSADOR Jernej Videtic, the Head of the European Union Delegation to Guyana, and Mr. Philippe Coessens, Minister Counsellor and Head of Political, earlier this week paid a courtesy call on Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Basil Williams, SC at his office.

The visit concerned the “Support to the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Systems in the Caribbean” project, the AG chambers said in a release. The project’s aim is to modernise and strengthen CARIFORUM participating countries’ court systems, processes, and services; and to train and equip judicial officers and court staff with the skills and competencies necessary to deliver justice in a fair, transparent, efficient and timely manner.

According to the release, the project which will be finalised by the European Development Fund and target the CARIFORUM Region will commence in early 2019.

Some of the main activities of the project will be technical assistance, procurement of equipment, training, national and regional coordination, witness protection, victim support, rehabilitation services aimed at offenders and public outreach. Williams during the meeting gave his full support for the project and the activities to be undertaken. He was further pleased that activities such as witness protection programme, procuring of equipment for the court including audio and video digital recording and digital voice transcription technology, video-conferencing equipment, internet court portals and rehabilitation initiatives/ workshops in prisons were part of the activities of the project.

The attorney general also highlighted the need for training of prosecutors, law enforcement and the judiciary in the areas of cybercrime and financial crimes. Additionally, discussed at the meeting was the abolition of the death penalty and an upcoming seminar on the subject facilitated by the EU and the UK. Also in attendance at the meeting were Chief Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Charles Fung-a-Fatt, and his deputy, Ms. Joann Bond.

AG, Energy Dept. discuss legislation, legal advice - The Chronicle Newspaper - 19th October, 2018

Details

Published: 23 October 2018

Attorney General, Basil Williams SC and officials of his Ministry with Dr, Mark Bynoe and members of the Department of Energy

HEAD of the Department of Energy, Dr. Mark Bynoe and Advisor on Oil and Gas, Matthew Wilks on Thursday met with the Attorney General, Basil Williams and other top officials of the chambers to discuss the drafting of legislation and providing legal advice on energy.
Dr. Bynoe and Wilks were joined by Ms. Joanna Homer, Legal Adviser. In a release, the AG’s Chambers said the visit concerned the work of the Department of Energy and the role of the chambers and Ministry of Legal Affairs with respect to drafting legislation and providing legal advice on oil and gas.

To this end, the need for a legislative review of the existing legal framework for oil and gas, the local content policy and capacity building in the area of oil and gas were discussed. The attorney general expressed appreciation for the visit by Dr. Bynoe and team and committed to working with the Department of Energy to ensure that a strong legal framework is in place to ensure all Guyanese benefit from the emerging oil sector, the release stated. The Chief Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Charles Fung-a-Fatt, and Deputy Chief Parliamentary Counsel, Ms. Joann Bond also attended the meeting.