The facts in the matter of the conduct of Attorney General Basil Williams in the Court of Justice Franklin Holder are undisputed: Williams questioned Justice Holder whether he had recorded an answer of the witness in the stand. After the judge had affirmed that he had, Williams continued with words, according to Justice Holder, “insinuating” that the court was being selective in recording the evidence. This was allegedly followed by a most egregious statement by Mr Williams: “I could say what I want to say and when I want to say it, I have always been like that…”
“Mr Williams’ behaviour was highly contemptuous and deserving of him being cited for contempt in the face of the court,” Justice Holder later wrote. “Instead of doing so at that moment, I chose to leave the Bench.”
Even Basil Williams, while denying his behaviour in the Court of Justice Holder was “contemptuous”, implicitly contradicted himself by afterwards claiming the Judge erred in not immediately citing him for contempt.
On this technicality, occasioned by Justice Holder’s attempt to maintain amiability between the Judiciary (of which he is a representative) and the Executive (of which Basil Williams, as Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, is a representative), Williams now seeks to avoid complying with Justice Holder’s suggestion on how the matter ought to be resolved.
“However, it does not mean that Mr Williams’ behaviour should go unattended. He is not only a Senior Counsel, he is also the Attorney General and leader of the Bar. His behaviour begs the question whether he is respectful and aware of the functions and duties that attend these offices. I am not prepared to sit to hear Mr Williams as an Attorney-at-Law in any matter whatsoever, unless he makes a genuine and meaningful apology to my satisfaction in open Court; both to me and to the Members of the Bar, since they, too, were scandalized by his despicable conduct,” Justice Holder has stated.
Evidently believing that “offence was the best defence”, after insisting he had nothing to apologise for, Williams is now demanding that Justice Holder “recuse” himself from hearing the case. Under our tradition of the rule of law, a Judge can be asked to “recuse” or remove him/herself from hearing a case if he/she can be proven to have shown bias in dealing with the case in front of him/her.
Over the weekend, Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, who is a party to the original case, also asked the Judge to recuse himself. “I am of the opinion that neither the State nor I will receive fair hearing in the matter…,” he wrote.
Unlike Williams, Nagamootoo offered grounds for his request: “The Judge had the power to handle the alleged incident between himself and the State’s Attorney General amicably in court…; the petition to Madam Chancellor requiring the State’s Attorney General to compulsorily apologise in open Court before continuation of the State’s matter; and forwarding by the Honourable Chancellor of the petition aforesaid to the President, who is also a party to the suit.”
None of these claims even suggest that Justice Holder showed “bias” in the case up to the point of Williams’s outburst. In Lesage v Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd [2012] UKPC 41, the Privy Council ruled: “The actual conduct of the judges during the trial is to be examined therefore to see whether it supports or detracts from the suggestion that there WAS the appearance of possible prejudice.”
But all the PM is claiming is he prospectively “would be prejudiced in the suit because my attorney (Williams) is barred from being heard in the matter.”
However, he missed the opportunity to accept Justice Holder’s magnanimous offer of a face saving way out of the Executive’s crude attempts to pressure the Judiciary and violate the Separation of Powers doctrine that grounds our Constitution’s “basic structure”. Any other attorney in the AG’s Chambers – or all, including the recently appointed “advisory” panel of five eminent members of the bar – could represent him. Surely they can collectively match the AG’s legal acumen.
Today, the Judiciary must draw a line against Executive overreach.
