Jonas’s application to quash Senior Counsel appointments is without merit – Forde

Attorney-at-Law Roysdale Forde is contending that an application by Attorney-at-Law Timothy Jonas, who is seeking to quash the appointment of Forde and three other lawyers to the dignity of Senior Counsel, is without merit, factually untrue, and legally unsound.

Jonas has moved to the High Court seeking an Order of Certiorari directed to the Attorney General to quash, as wholly void and ultra vires, what he terms the purported appointments of Attorneys-at-Law Roysdale Forde, Jamela Ali, Stanley Moore and Mursalene Bacchus to the dignity of Senior Counsel.
Those appointments, made last December by former President David Granger, came into effect in January 2020.
Jonas argues that the appointment of Senior Counsel lies within the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature, specifically the Full Bench; and the President – a member of the Executive – in making the purported appointments, had trespassed into the realm of the Judiciary, which violates Article 122 of the Constitution of Guyana.

That article reads: “All courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of direction and control.”
Forde has, however, outrightly dismissed the contentions advanced by Jonas, claiming that, in recent times, former President Granger appointed attorneys-at-law to the dignity of Senior Counsel. He said that between December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2018, the former President appointed the following Attorneys-at-Law to the dignity of Silk: Neil Aubrey Boston; Charles John Ethelwood Fung-A-Fat; Chief Justice Alison Roxane McLean George-Wiltshire; Clifton Mortimer Llewellyn John; Rafiq Turhan Khan; Vidyanand Persaud; Rosalie Althea Robertson; Justice Claudette Margot Cecille Singh; Basil Williams; Kalam Azad Juman Yassin; Fitz Le Roy Peters; Andrew Mark Fitzgerald Pollard; Josephine Whitehead; K.A. Juman-Yassin; Shalimar Ali-Hack; Stephen Fraser; Carole James-Boston; Robert Ramcharran and Rajendra Poonai.
According to Forde, “It is the President who appoints Attorneys-at-Law to the dignity of Senior Counsel. The President has, at all material times, and particularly between 1970 and the present time, appointed attorneys-at-law to the dignity of Senior Counsel.”
Forde contends that it is only after the President had appointed attorneys-at-law to the dignity of Senior Counsel that the Full Court of the High Court, by convention and practice, judicially recognises the appointment of attorneys-at-law to the dignity of Senior Counsel by admitting such attorneys-at-law to the Inner Bar.
He said the foregoing is quite similar to the judicial practice and convention in which there are sittings of the Full Court of the High Court to honour the contribution to the Bar made by deceased attorneys-at-law.
Against this backdrop, Forde further contends that “[Jonas] had failed to establish that there was any direction and/or instruction from the President to the Judiciary when he made the appointments…”
Further, Forde is arguing that the convention and practice of the Full Court of the High Court: of judicially recognising the appointment of attorneys-at-law by the President by admitting such attorneys-at-law to the Inner Bar, is neither a condition precedent to the appointment by the President of attorneys-at-law to the dignity of Senior Counsel, nor is it a necessary consequential act required to consummate, or give any legal efficacy to, the appointment by the President of attorneys-at-law to the dignity of Senior Counsel.
According to the Senior Counsel, the Full Bench of the High Court does not exercise an inherent jurisdiction to exercise a discretion to confer on attorneys-at-law who have practised with distinction before the Court the dignity of Senior Counsel, as is being contended by Jonas.
Forde maintains that the President has the constitutional and other statutory power to appoint attorneys-at-law to the dignity of Senior Counsel, and Jonas’s contention of otherwise is without any merit, as it was never a decision, power, or matter within the provision of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to appoint attorneys-at-law to Senior Counsel.
As such, any appointment made by the President cannot, and does not, violate Article 122 of the Constitution of Guyana, Forde noted in his Affidavit in Defence.
The case comes up for hearing on October 28, 2020 before Justice Nareshwar Harnanan at the High Court in Demerara.
Guyana Times understands that on Christmas Eve Day in 2018, Jonas was contacted and informed that, based on recommendations from Judges, he would be appointed to the dignity of Senior Counsel, and would receive the relevant documentation shortly. A few days later, media outlets published stories of Jonas being affiliated to A New and United Guyana (ANUG)- a small political party which contested the March 02, 2020 General and Regional Elections.
The reason(s) is/are unclear, but Jonas was contacted sometime later and informed that his elevation to Silk was being reconsidered by the Executive. A few days later, the then Ministry of the Presidency announced the names of five new Senior Counsels, and to much surprise, Jonas’s name was not on the list.