2 lawyers file defence in case seeking to quash their Senior Counsel appointments

Two of the four lawyers whose appointments to Senior Counsel are being challenged, Roysdale Forde and Mursalene Bacchus have filed defending affidavits.
Attorney-at-Law Timothy Jonas moved to the High Court where he is seeking judicial review of a decision by then President David Granger to appoint Attorneys-at-Law Forde, Bacchus, Jameli Ali and Stanley Moore to the dignity of Senior Counsel.
Jonas, among other things, is seeking an Order of Certiorari to be directed to the Attorney General to quash the decision by the then President to appoint the four lawyers as Senior Counsel.
Jonas’s application came up for hearing on Monday before High Court Judge Nareshwar Harnanan. During the virtual hearing, Forde, Moore and Bacchus were added as parties. Forde and Bacchus were granted permission for their Affidavits in Support to be treated as their affidavits in defence, while Moore was granted leave to file an Affidavit in Defence on or before September 22, 2020.
Jonas’s lawyer, Teni Housty was granted 28 days to file written submissions, on or before October 6, 2020. The Attorney General and added parties – Forde, Bacchus and Moore – were instructed to file written submissions within 14 days after receipt of Jonas’s submissions, on or before October 20, 2020. Jonas has seven days to respond, on or before October 27, 2020.
The case comes up for another hearing on October 28. The Judge has allotted each party 15 minutes to expound on any point raised in their written submissions.
Back in 2019, then President Granger elevated the four lawyers to Senior Counsel. Jonas, however, argues that the then President acted outside his authority and as such, the conferral was illegal and void. He further argues that there is no statutory or other power conferred on the President to make any decision to appoint Attorneys-at-Law to the dignity of Senior Counsel.
Jonas submits that the appointment of Senior Counsel lies within the inherent discretion of the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature. The lawyer explained that the power and discretion to admit persons to practise at the Bar; to preside over such persons; to discipline, suspend and disbar such persons is conferred by the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act and Common Law on the High Court, the Supreme Court of Judicature.
He further explained that from time to time, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Judicature, in the exercise of an inherent jurisdiction, exercised a discretion to confer on Attorneys-at-Law who have practised with distinction before the Court, the dignity of Senior Counsel.
Jonas noted that the status of Senior Counsel was fundamentally important to the legal practitioner, both within the legal fraternity by virtue of the courtesies extended to Senior Counsels by the Judiciary and the Bar at large, and in the public domain, by public perception of the professional standard of legal service.
“There is no statutory or other power conferred on the President of Guyana, whether as President or otherwise to make such a decision or to appoint Attorneys-Aa-Law to the dignity of Senior Counsel, and the decision by the President…is entirely void and of no effect,” he said.
Jonas further said that in so far as the President, a member of the Executive, purports to make a decision within the province of the inherent discretion of the High Court, “his trespass into the realm of the Judiciary violates Article 122 of the Constitution of Guyana, and is illegal and void”.
These proceedings come more than a year after Attorney Jonas had his Senior Counsel appointment withdrawn after he announced his affiliation with A New and United Guyana (ANUG) – a new political party formed to contest the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections.