Carvil Duncan trial
Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo has asked Attorney General Basil Williams to put forward a request for High Court Justice Franklin Holder to recuse himself from the Carvil Duncan case in light of the brewing tension between the two over an incident at the last hearing back in March. 
Duncan had moved to the court to block the work of a Presidential Tribunal that was set up to determine whether he should be removed from his post as Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC) in light of criminal charges proffered against him, one of which has since been dismissed at the Magistrate’s Court.
Justice Holder has complained to acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards that during the March 23rd hearing of the case, he abruptly walked out of the courtroom as a result of statements made by the Attorney General.
He quoted the AG as saying, “I could say what I want to say and however I want to say it, I have always been like that… The last magistrate who (told me what to do) was later found dead.”
Justice Holder has judge said in his complaint that he felt disrespected by the Attorney General’s behaviour. He has called for an apology to be proffered him in open court before he would proceed with the case.
However, the State’s chief legal advisor is holding out that he is not to be blamed for causing the High Court judge to walk out of the courtroom. He has also insisted that his comment had not been a threat, even though the defence lawyer at the time, Anil Nandlall, has described it as one.
In a letter dated May 4, 2017 and addressed to the Attorney General, Prime Minister Nagamootoo raised concerns about having a fair trial in light of the incident.
“I am a respondent in the matter at caption, and I am writing you in your capacity as my attorney-at-Law herein. Due to an alleged incident between yourself and Justice Franklyn Holder in his Honour’s court on March 23, 2017 in the above mentioned suit, and His Honour’s subsequent petition to the Honourable Chancellor against the Attorney General on the issue of the alleged incident, I am of the opinion that neither the State nor l will receive fair hearing in the matter…,” the Prime Minister stated.
His concern is based on the following grounds outlined in the letter: That the Judge had the power to handle the alleged incident between himself and the State’s Attorney General amicably in court, instead of retiring to his Chambers without the formal rising of the 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.
“Based on all the above mentioned grounds, I am of the opinion that I would be prejudiced in the suit because my attorney is barred from being heard in the matter. In view of the foregoing, therefore, I authorise you to request that the Honourable Mr Justice Holder recuse himself from further hearing the matter.” A copy of the petition was forwarded to both the Chancellor of the Judiciary and Chief Justice, as well as President David Granger.
No response
On Thursday last, the Office of the Chancellor had revealed that despite calling on AG Williams to officially explain his conduct, he is yet to respond.
A statement from the Chancellor’s Office said that a copy of Justice Holder’s letter of complaint was sent to Attorney General Williams for him to respond and explain. But, to date, the Attorney General, who has been visibly engaged in ceremonial occasions since the incident, has not responded.
“Since Mr Williams holds the executive positions of Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, a copy of Justice Holder’s letter was sent to the Head of State purely as a matter of information and courtesy. No complaint was made to His Excellency,” the statement said. It did, however, announce that the date for continuation of the Carvil Duncan trial has been set as May 8.
Meanwhile, the Attorney-General on Friday disclosed that the acting Chancellor never asked him to respond to Justice Holder’s complaint about his conduct. In a brief statement, Williams noted that she must have been “mistaken” if she thought that she had asked him to respond to the judge’s letter.
