Attorney General Basil Williams has refuted what he termed “disrespectful” reports that he had made death threats against Justice Franklin Holder on Thursday during a High Court case against Trade Unionist Carvil Duncan; and he has promised to seek redress in the courts.
Williams made this assertion during a press conference on Friday. Referring to
Attorney General Basil Williams
publication of the reports as an attack against Government, he has promised to sue local media houses Guyana Times and Kaieteur News, as well as former Attorney General Anil Nandlall.
“I think it is a disrespectful act and an attack against this Government!” Williams declared. “They will have to deal with the courts in this matter. I have been collecting all of those allegations that were false and spurious against me, and they must be reckoned with for exemplary damages; because I know how to deal with these newspapers,” the AG threatened. “I’ve spoken to several counsel, and they are in the process of preparing letters to these newspapers, and they would indicate to them that it is a libel — a grievous libel — against the Attorney General by way of his office.”
Relating what he said had transpired, Williams said his words were taken out of context. He related that, at the time, he had cross-examined Duncan’s confidential secretary and had afterwards had a discourse with Justice Holder, who was already leaving the bench.
“When the judge said that he was going to adjourn, I asked the judge if he could
Former AG Anil Nandlall
allow me one last question. My final question to her was if she (had) made (a) record of every mail she (had) received for Mr Duncan, and her answer was ‘No’.”
Williams said what he did was ask the judge, who had just adjourned, whether the witness’s last response to his cross-examination had been recorded by the court. “The judge, to my surprise, said, ‘Mr Williams, you are not in charge of my court’, and I said, ‘Not me, that could be said of Mr Nandlall, who has been trying to control your court’. And he then said to me, ‘Mr Williams, I interpret that to mean that I deliberately did not record the yes answer that you said was given by the witness’.”
Williams claimed to have then related an anecdote to Justice Holder about a magistrate who had, in the past, made a similar allegation against him. He said that that magistrate had incorrectly interpreted a statement he had made, and ever since that day, he has been careful with the words he uses in court.
“And (I said), ‘Incidentally, that magistrate is dead now,’ and I moved on; and the judge and I continued addressing issues. Mr Nandlall then jumped in…and
thereupon, that’s when the judge left the bench,” the Attorney General related.
Claiming that Nandlall had been disturbing the court throughout the proceedings, Williams inferred that Nandlall was “under the influence of something.” The AG was adamant that nothing prevented the judge from leaving the bench, and that “the judge doesn’t have to give a date before he leaves the bench.”
The legal challenge was filed by Duncan against the attempt to remove him from the Chairmanship of the Public Service Commission, from being a member of the Police Service Commission, and from serving on the Judicial Service Commission.
A conflict of facts has since arisen in the various affidavits filed. The Prime Minister contends that his office had served Duncan with a letter dated 29, March 2016 — which he claims was received at the Public Service Commission on April 14, 2016 — calling upon Duncan to show cause why, within fourteen (14) days, he should not be removed from the aforesaid positions.
Duncan and his Confidential Secretary, in their affidavits, swore that no such letter had ever been received at the Public Service Commission. They both contend that, indeed, a letter from the Prime Minister’s Office was received on April 14th, 2017; but that letter, addressed to Duncan, had informed him of a Public Service Conference which was to be held in London, England later that year.
In order to resolve this conflict in the affidavits, Justice Holder has ordered that persons who swore to the affidavits be crossed-examined. Attempts to make contact with Justice Holder were futile.
Reiteration
Meanwhile Nandlall, in a press release on Friday, reiterated that Williams had made the statements previously attributed to him. “His reckless utterances to Justice Holder were witnessed by at least two State Counsel of the AG’s Chambers; Carvil Duncan; Duncan’s Confidential Secretary; Diana Persaud; Rajendra Jaigobin; Attorneys-at-Law; members of the press; two Marshals of the High Court; my Personal Assistant, Shivun Hutson; and a few persons who are unknown to me. These persons were all in the Court”, Nandlall contends. “Yet, Mr Williams barefacedly denies that he (had) made the statements published by the press, which caused the Honourable Justice Holder to walk off the Bench, in disgust and possibly fear, without adjourning the matter.”
Noting that the Attorney General is threatening to go to Court, Nandlall has challenged him to do so. The former Attorney General has said that he has no doubt he would be vindicated.
