Our Mission
To ensure that proper legal services are provided to the Government; to provide statutory services to the public relating to the public trust and bankruptcy matters; and to register titles, mortgages, companies, societies and other bodies as well as other documents, as required by the law.
Jail them! - The Chronicle Newspaper -10th April, 2018
- Details
Ministers of Public Security (second left) and Legal Affairs (third left), Khemraj Ramjattan and Basil Williams, SC. stand with British High Commissioner Greg Quinn (third right), Irish Financial Investigations adviser to SOCU, Dr Sam Sittlington (centre), Police Commissioner (ag) David Ramnarine (left) and two British anti-corruption and fraud experts (extreme right)
–British envoy urges zero tolerance for corrupt law enforcement agents
BRITISH High Commissioner to Guyana, Greg Quinn on Monday charged investigators to isolate themselves from fraud, bribery and corruption or face the full brunt of the law.
“There is no place for corruption in the security agencies in Guyana. If officials and individuals cannot work with honesty and integrity, then they should be drummed out, prosecuted and imprisoned as necessary,” declared Quinn.
He noted, too, that if investigators are involved in criminal activities, then it would be impossible for the security sector to expect respect, support and cooperation from the public.
Speaking at the opening ceremony of a two-week anti-corruption training course facilitated by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) on Monday, the High Commissioner told the 30 participants from SOCU, the Customs Anti-Narcotics Agency (CANU), the State’s Assets Recovery Agency (SARA), the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) they need to take their responsibilities seriously.
“It is therefore incumbent on each member of the security agencies to fulfil their task to the highest of standard,” he said. “Not only is it the right thing to do but as the funders of this and other training, it is what the British Government expects.”
He noted that the training will see local law enforcement officials understanding the intricacies of investigating serious and complex fraud, bribery and corruption cases. Week one will concentrate on investigation methods for fraud, while week two will focus on methods and offences of bribery and corruption.
As part of the training programme, the participants will examine major fraud and bribery case scenarios designed to have them put into practice that which they have learned.
“All of you here today can and must set the example for everybody else to follow,” said Quinn.
The two-week programme will be run by British experts, Tony Crompton and Mark Dilliway, who both have over 30 years’ experience in serious and organised crime, as well as fraud with the City of London Police.
NEED TO BE ENFORCED
Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams, SC., who echoed similar sentiments as the British envoy, said that there is a great need to enforce anti-corruption laws as stakeholders work together to find, prosecute and jail offenders.
“This requires cooperation and changed attitudes towards corruption,” the Attorney-General said. “Preventing the damaging effects of corruption should be a priority and responsibility for everyone.“Therefore, it is incumbent on us to build and maintain strong, independent institutions to guard against corruption, as well as promoting a culture that makes it impossible for corrupt individuals to thrive. This must be founded on a commitment to zero tolerance for corruption and considering the ramifications of corruption; nothing less is acceptable.”
The Minister said his government welcomes the SOCU initiative to host the training programme, which is being held at the Police Training Centre, Camp Road, Georgetown.
He said his administration has a zero-tolerance on corruption in all forms, while noting that financial crimes were added to the remit of SOCU, whose primary responsibility is combating money laundering, terrorist financing and financing of the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Noting that the present administration took steps to have several forensic audits conducted upon taking office in May 2015, Williams said that those audits have led to many criminal investigations and charges of fraud for the stealing of State assets.
“But financial crimes investigatory framework requires greater capacity building; financial, prosecutorial and judicial expertise,” he said, adding:
“In its most recent report, the Auditor General noted the scale of overpayment by public officials to contractors, which is but one of the nefarious devices deployed to rob the Government of billions of dollars.”
Referencing the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Williams said corruption undermines democratic institutions, slows economic development, and contributes to governmental instability. He said crimes such as bribery, fraud, misappropriation, embezzlement, and money laundering have dire effects on the economy.
STYMIES ECONOMIC GROWTH
“They stymie economic growth and deplete resources, resulting in poverty, poor health care and lack of proper infrastructures,” the minister said. “Corruption tramples upon the socio-economic rights of citizens and ultimately erodes the moral fabric of society. The integrity of the government and national security are also adversely affected by corrupt practices.”
Corruption also weakens good governance, he said, as principles such as accountability and transparency become non-existent. Moreover, corruption deters both foreign and domestic investment, as it fosters an inequitable environment for trade. Ultimately, our economic dynamism will be reduced.
“To successfully fight against corruption,” the Attorney-General said, “there needs to be effective detection, investigation, analysis of evidence and prosecution of crime; ultimately leading to convictions. It is for these reasons that this course is important.”
Participants of the programme, he said, will over the next two weeks examine the bribery landscape to understand the scale of corruption and bribery and the harm they entail, and our legislative framework to militate against these offences.
The government, he said, has been doing its part by conducting anti-corruption sensitisation seminars in the various administrative regions of the country, which have had significant impact on cases of misappropriation of state assets. Those seminars, he said, have highlighted the importance of the States Asset Recovery Act, the Witness Protection and Whistleblower Act.
“As we are all aware, witnesses and whistleblowers possess the evidence needed to investigate and prosecute offences such as bribery, fraud and corruption,” he stated, while noting that corruption must be exposed.
TIMELY INTERVENTION
Similarly, Dr Sam Sittlington, Irish Financial Investigations adviser to SOCU, said the training being provided the law enforcement officials is not only timely but relevant. Dr Sittlington said it is important for the participants to be able to conduct thorough investigations into fraud, bribery and corruption cases.
He, like the British High Commissioner, noted the vast experience of the two trainers in the fields, and stressed the importance of having practical experience in this regard.
The programme, Dr Sittlington said, is intense and what is needed for investigators. He noted that oftentimes, investigators are bogged down with looking at PowerPoint presentations or other documents, but through this programme, participants would be tasked with thinking outside of the box and looking at ways in which they can solve fraud, bribery and corruption cases, and ensuring that those found guilty are placed before the courts.
Some 14 SOCU members, nine CID fraud members, two CANU, one FIU and four representatives from SARA are participating in the training programme funded by the British Government.
Also present at the opening of the training programme were Minister of Public Security, Khemraj Ramjattan; Police Commissioner (ag), David Ramnarine; and Head of SOCU, Sydney James.
Courtesy Call by Representatives of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators-Caribbean Branch (CAIArb) - 28th March, 2018
- Details
In the photo are Ms Maureen Paul (the extreme left); Ms Kim Kyte John, Solicitor General; Honourable Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr. Basil Williams; Ms. Joann Bond, Principal Parliamentary Counsel and Mr Calvin Hamilton
On 28th March, 2018, Mr Calvin Hamilton and Ms Maureen Paul, paid a courtesy call on the Honourable Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams, SC, MP on behalf of CIArb Guyana Conference Planning Committee.
The aim of the visit was to update the Honourable Attorney General on the upcoming 3rd International Arbitration Conference which will held in Guyana from 23rd -28th April, 2018. The theme of the Conference is “On the Road to Success-Arbitration as a Tool for Economic Development in Guyana” and is open to members of the legal fraternity and other persons interested in Arbitration. The aim of the Conference is to contribute to the development of domestic and international commercial arbitration in Guyana and the region.
Mr Hamilton informed the meeting that on the 23rd and 24th of April there will be a special course on Commercial Mediation. On the 25th April, 2018 the Conference will be formally opened and the programme for this day will address the fundamental workings of commercial arbitration proceedings. Some of the areas that will be looked at are the basic legal framework for arbitration, the arbitration agreement and the role of the court. On the 26th of April, there will be an ICSID International Arbitration Workshop and this programme will guide participants through each stage of an ICSID arbitration. It will also update participants on the latest developments in ICSID and best practices before ICSID Tribunals by reference to the most recent cases.
Mr Williams in response to the plans of the planning committee, commended them in bringing the Conference to Guyana especially at a time when our country is seeing an increase in investors. He also noted that arbitration is an important tool to settle disputes and legal practitioners should be educated in this area of the law. To this end the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs is in support of the Conference.
Also in attendance at the meeting were Ms Kim Kyte John, Solicitor General, Ms Joylyn Burrowes, Permanent Secretary, Ms Ayanna McCalman, State Solictor and Public Trustee, Ms. Joann Bond, Principal Parliamentary Counsel and Ms Oneka Archer, Principal Legal Advisor.
Presidential Terms Limit Case - 27 March 2018
- Details
Submission by lawyers for the State.
AG visits CFATF headquarters - The Chronicle Newspaper -14th March, 2018
- Details
Chairman of CFATF, Basil Williams and staff of the secretariat
…tells staff underground economy undermining regional countries
CHAIRMAN of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) and Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Basil Williams, on Tuesday toured the Trinidad headquarters of CFATF, when he told staff that “many of our regional economies have been affected by the underground economy.”
Williams’ visit came one day after he and a team of lawyers represented Guyana in a third term case at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). During the visit Williams met with the Executive Director Ms. Dawne Spicer, Deputy Executive Director Carlos Acosta and staff of the Secretariat.
Chairman Williams expressed his pleasure at being able to incorporate the visit to the secretariat following his representation in a matter on behalf of the State of Guyana at the Caribbean Court of Justice. During the visit he engaged the secretariat staff on the vision of the CFATF and commended the hard work of the secretariat in fostering regional implementation of countermeasures to address Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and the Financing of the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Chairman Williams specifically noted that “many of our regional economies have been deflected by the underground economy being the proceeds of crime from the five wars of globalisation – trafficking in persons, trafficking in narcotics, trafficking in weapons, money laundering and terrorist financing.” He noted the efficient work done by the secretariat staff and urged them to redouble efforts to assist CFATF members.
Chairman Williams will preside over the upcoming CFATF Plenary in Trinidad and Tobago during the period May 27-31, 2018. At this time, Chairman Williams is spearheading the ongoing anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism work of CFATF’s 25 member countries.
Meanwhile, only last month Williams led the CFATF delegation at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Plenary Meeting and Working Groups, held at OECD headquarters in Paris, France. CFATF participants included the CFATF Secretariat, Bermuda, Haiti, Jamaica, Venezuela, and Aruba and Curacao (under the Kingdom of the Netherlands).
The main issues addressed by this Plenary were: Combatting terrorist financing, including the adoption of a new counter-terrorist financing operational plan and a statement on the actions taken under the 2016 counterterrorist financing strategy. FATF Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs) were tasked with developing their own counter-terrorist financing operational plans.
Additionally, the plenary addressed amendments to recommendation two on national cooperation and coordination; Haiti was removed from the Third Round FATF ICRG pool; Barbados was placed in the Fourth Round FATF ICRG pool based on the results of the Mutual Evaluation Report and Trinidad and Tobago’s progress was discussed by the ICRG. They remain in status quo and will report at the FATF’s June 2018 Plenary.
Term-limit Act valid - The Chronicle Newspaper - 13th March, 2018
- Details
Attorney General Basil Williams addressing the court
…AG tells CCJ Chang, Carl Singh erred in applying Basic Structure Doctrine in third term case
ATTORNEY-General, Basil Williams on Monday told the full bench of the Caribbean Court of Justice that two former top judicial officers here had erred in applying the Basic Structure Doctrine in the ‘third term case’ even as he asserted that the term-limit act is valid.
Cedric Richardson, the relatively unknown man who made the court challenge
Williams and a battery of lawyers are challenging a Court of Appeal ruling in the case brought by the relatively unknown Cedric Richardson on the presidential term-limit. The ruling was initially challenged by both the state and former Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman. Trotman has dropped out of the case. The state is being represented by Williams SC, Solicitor-General Kim Kyte-Thomas, State Counsel Uteika John and Barbadian Queens Counsel, Hal Gallop and Ralph Thorne. Richardson was represented by Douglas Mendes of Trinidad. The case is being keenly watched and many feel that former President Bharrat Jagdeo has played a big role in the challenge of the term-limit, but he and his party have always denied this.
Richardson of Laing Avenue, Georgetown, in a constitutional challenge, just before the May 2015 General and Regional Elections contested the amendments made to Article 90 of the Constitution that were enacted in 2000 following a bipartisan Constitutional Reform Process. Article 90 (2) states that, “a person elected as President after the year 2000 is eligible for re-election only once.” He argued that that the term-limit infringes on Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution wherein Article 1 states that “Guyana is an indivisible, secular, democratic, sovereign state in the course of transition from capitalism to socialism and shall be known as the Co-operative Republic of Guyana” and Article 9, states that “Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this Constitution.”
However, Williams, the first-named appellant had argued that amendments made to Article 90 are not unconstitutional. In his opening arguments Monday the attorney general told the CCJ that the High Court and Court of Appeal of Guyana applied the Basic Structure Doctrine in the case. He pointed out that the doctrine does not apply to Guyana and any other CARICOM country that has a constitution that mirrors the Westminster model. The Basic Structure Doctrine which is an Indian judicial principle that the Constitution has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the Parliament. The doctrine applies only to constitutional amendments.
But Williams argued that “where legislation is passed in accordance with prescription- in terms of manner and form, the court ought not to inquire as to the propriety; the substance of that legislation.”
Citing several authorities, Williams noted too that the Basic Structure Doctrine was applied in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. He said the Learned Chief Justice (as he then was) Ian Chang and Chancellor (as he then was) Carl Singh, erred when they enquired as to whether the restriction of the third term was constitutional. The Guyanese AG rejected outright the use of the concept of Basic Structure Doctrine noting that it does not apply to the Guyana Constitution and noted that the learned Chief Justice and Chancellor both overstepped their boundaries. “The Act was validly passed. The only question is whether it conforms with the constrictions on Article 164 (2) (6) of the Constitution. Our submission is that it did,” he posited.
Williams then provided the court with the background to the amendments made to the Constitution in 2000. He explained that the amendments were passed unanimously as both the government at that time and the opposition agreed after consultations with civil society and other stakeholders. “The Act was assented to by the then President Bharrat Jagdeo,” asserted Williams who noted that the amendment to Article 90 of the Constitution only allows a person to be president twice.
Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douyglas Mendez
“The legislation came out of post-election trauma and chaos,” said Williams who noted that it was by virtue of the Herdmanston Accord that there was Constitutional reform resulting in the effected amendment. The Herdmanston Accord originated from CARICOM’s intervention via mediation here to ensure that the country returned to a state of peace and normalcy. It was as a result of that intervention that the pact was signed. The Accord was not originally filed by the AG and his team but leave was granted for the AG to enter into an agreement with Counsel for Richardson, Douglas Mendes SC to have that document submitted as it may prove vital to the judges understanding of what occurred in 1997.
DELAY
Meanwhile, Solicitor- General Kyte-Thomas in her brief presentation raised the issue of delay. She argued that while the issue of delay was not raised in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal it is important. “We acknowledge, your honour, that there was no limitation in other Constitutions in respect to the bringing of constitutional claims and seeking constitutional relief. However, the courts around this Region have spoken.”
She pointed to case law where it was ruled that a litigant cannot sit idly by and then years after go to the court seeking redress. She reminded that the court found in many instances that delay may defeat a constitutional motion. “The issue is how relevant is that question to what this court has to examine. It is very relevant because when one looks at the social and historical evolution of Act #17 of 2000 and the reason for the birth of this Act delay becomes extremely relevant and I ask this court to perhaps look at the question of delay as a factor when you consider a holistic view of this matter.”
She like Williams, noted the civil unrest which occurred in Guyana following the 1997 elections and the subsequent signing of the Herdmanston Accord. “Your honours; this is not just a question of third term. Mr Richardson your honours, decided to sit idly by after 14 years…and now to approach the court… [This] can certainly be a factor for this court to view as an abuse of the process of the court. ”
Kyte-Thomas added that the court has “an inherent jurisdiction to protect itself from the abuse of its own process.” She posited that the Act was validly passed and that Parliament had complied with all of the pre-requisites for passage of the Act.
NO ABUSE OF PROCESS
But Kyte-Thomas’ argument was countered by Mendes who stated that the delay spoken of by the Solicitor-General could not be viewed as an abuse of the court. “It is not an abuse of the process of the court. The passage of time does not purify a law that is unconstitutional. This Act infringes Articles 1 and 9… [And] delay cannot constitutionalise an unconstitutional statute,” he argued.
He reminded the court that the issue of delay was not raised in the High Court or the Court of Appeal and posited that for the Court to say that it will consider delay would prove “extraordinary”.
“It would be unfair for the court to determine the case on delay…that is just wrong, unfair and contrary to the rule of law,” Mendes said while adding that if the appellants had raised the issue of delay in the lower courts then it would have been properly raised before the CCJ.
“…Delay cannot protect an unconstitutional law,” he declared. Additionally, the Trinidadian senior counsel argued that once a total disqualification for running for the office of president is created then “you are infringing the right of the electorate to choose someone of their choice.” “That right is located in the combination of Articles one and 9. You either agree or disagree with that…that is the question in this case,” he said as he argued that sovereignty belongs to the people.
“The people have created a constitution by referendum by which certain rights are bestowed by Article 9…sovereignty of the people which they exercise through their representatives is immediately undermined as you begin to limit the persons they can choose as their representatives. The people must have a free choice as to who their representatives are. – Sovereignty means they have complete control,” the attorney stated as he asked judges to uphold the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal and dismiss the appeal by the AG.
FLAWED RULING
Meanwhile, Gallop QC noted that the majority ruling of the Court of Appeal handed down by Chancellor Singh (as he then was) was flawed as the Chancellor “failed to come to grips with the meaning of sovereignty in Articles 1 and 9.”
“That failure led to what may be considered as some element of flights of fancy which did not help us understand what should guide the court in interpreting Articles 1 and 9.” Gallop said too that Richardson’s written submission also posed difficulty as he contends that the responsibility of defining the meaning of the word sovereignty rests upon the court; something Gallop said the Chancellor failed to do. The Barbadian Queens Counsel lawyer argued too that the power bestowed on the people of Guyana was transferred to the Parliament by the people so that the sovereignty of the people remained guaranteed by their own Act.
“In the absence of a properly defined concept of sovereignty by the learned Chancellor, it is our submission that the respondent has failed to show how Articles 1 and 9 had been amended or altered in any way to an extent that the sovereignty of the people have been taken away.”
Gallop said too that the sovereignty of the people being demonstrated by what they have committed the parliament to do. “The political directorate demonstrates what the people wish to have done and the remedy for failure in that regard is a political remedy I would respectfully submit. You vote them out but there can be no question that a parliament properly constituted in the manner and form of the constitution, making amendment to laws in the manner and form stipulated by the constituted is acting within the power of the constitution.”
Gallop contended that when issues of sovereignty and rights are not spelt out into the constitution, the court is invited “to take a flight of fancy”; to impose a number of subjected views on what may be constituted as rights. “This in our submission of the court is the difficulty which the High Court and Court of Appeal found itself.” He stressed that in the absence of clearly defined terms in the constitution, “we are going into the realm of politics”. “A court should not bring its own interpretations and make its own interpretations so expansive as to trespass on that organ of the state to whom the right to legislate has been given by the constitution,” he stated.
He opined that in the absence of clearly expressed terms or defined concepts, a court should restrict itself to what the constitution says is allowable. In this regard, Gallop said the Chancellor confused himself by applying a faulty definition of sovereignty. The QC posited that given the conciseness of Article 9, which says that “sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this Constitution”, the court is empowered to make a proper determination on what properly constitutes sovereignty.
“As long as a provision conforms to the manner and form of the constitution, Parliament can turn a man into a woman,” he added.
NO ALTERATION BY IMPLICATION
For his part, Thorne QC stressed in his submission that Articles 1 and 9 of the Constitution cannot be altered by implication. He said too that the courts in Guyana have looked at Articles 1 and 9 selectively as the lower courts have extracted selective words. “There has not been a holistic reading of the articles. Articles 1 and 9 compose of political concepts, as embattled as they are…no one in the High Court, Court of Appeal nor written submissions from the other side has asked the question, ‘what is the definition of socialism?’”
Thorne went further to state that interpretation of Articles 1 and 9 involves political judgment and noted that the court is entitled to make political judgments but outline the thin line between political and legal concepts such as sovereignty, and democracy. “I would like to submit that what the Guyana Court of Appeal did was to make political judgments with constitutional consequences…it is a constitutional consequence that is indeed undemocratic. The essential deficiency in the court of appeal judgment is that it has not cared to define indivisibility, secular…transition from capitalism to socialism…all it speaks of is sovereignty.”
Thorne declared that Article 9 of the Constitution does not define sovereignty but it locates sovereignty. He said while the Constitution has not defined the term the court has to power to so do. “But when the court defines it, it must not define it in such a way that it has egregious constitutional consequences…this court may wish to caution itself against a ruling of the majority of the court of appeal when it is clear that a limit of a term of the person who occupies the highest office is done to defend the integrity of a system.”
He said a term limit is instituted to give opportunities to many instead of one person as is the case in China. “The amendment is democratic,” he argued as is in the United States of America and Trinidad and Tobago. “There is in this part of the world revulsion of experiences of persons having indefinite stays in office. That is what Caribbean people are revulsed by when politicians who stay in office… let us stay indefinitely. Constitutions and the people try to safeguard the system so that one person does not occupy the office indefinitely,” the Barbadian Lawyer contended. The court matter was presided on by Sir Dennis Byron, and Justices Adrian Saunders, Jacob Wit, David Hayton, Winston Anderson, Rajnauth Lee and Denys Barrow.
