Timothy Jonas challenging Granger’s 2019 SC appointments

Attorney-at-Law Timothy Jonas has filed legal action, seeking a judicial review of caretaker President David Granger’s appointment of four Senior Counsels back in December 2019.

The application, which was seen by Guyana Times, was filed on Tuesday by Attorney Teni Housty on behalf of Jonas, who is asking the court to issue an Order of Certiorari (judicial review of a decision by a Government agency) to the Attorney General, “quashing as wholly and ultra vires, the determination by the President of Guyana… dated 31st December 2019, emanating from the Ministry of the Presidency, purporting to appoint to the dignity of Senior Counsel, the following Attorneys-at-Law, Jameela Ally, Roysdale Forde, Mursalene Bacchus and Stanley Moore”.

Attorney General Basil Williams was named the lone respondent in the matter.
In his grounds, Jonas explained that the power and discretion to admit persons to practice at the Bar of Guyana, 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 of Guyana. The Full Bench of the High Court has from time to time, in the exercise of an inherent jurisdiction, exercised a discretion to confer on attorneys-at-law who have practiced with distinction before the Court, the dignity of Senior Counsel.

He further noted that the status of Senior Counsel is fundamentally important to the legal practitioner, both within the legal fraternity by virtue of the courtesies extended to Senior Counsel by the Judiciary and the Bar at large, and in the public domain, by public perception of the professional standard of legal service.
According to Jonas, “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-at-law to the dignity of Senior Counsel, and the decision by the President…is entirely

void and of no effect.”
Jonas went on to say 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.”
The matter has been fixed for hearing September 8, 2020, at 10:00 before Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George.
This proceeding comes more than a year after Attorney Jonas had his Senior Counsel appointment withdrawn after he announced his affiliation with A New United Guyana (ANUG) – a new political party formed to contest the March 2 elections.
Jonas is currently the Chairman of ANUG.
According to reports, Attorney Jonas was informed by Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Yonette Cummings-Edwards late 2018 that he was approved by the Judges to be conferred with “Silk” and would be recommended to the Executive.
Then on December 24, 2018, Jonas was contacted by Chief of Protocol at the Ministry of the Presidency, informing him that he was reportedly being appointed Senior Counsel and that in the coming days he would receive his documentation and invitation to the ceremony.
However, it was subsequently reported that a new political party – ANUG – was formed and that Jonas was among the executives. Less than a week after this, Jonas received another call indicating that the Executive had reconsidered his SC appointment. A list, exempting Jonas, was then published naming five new SCs: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack along with attorneys Stephen Fraser, Carole James-Boston, Robert Ramcharran and Rajendra Poonai.
Jonas had described the move as “vindictive politics” while noting that actions such as this have “tarnished the whole image of Silk.”
Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall had said that when the process of the conferral of Silk is left to politicians then it becomes a subject of “political exercise of discretion”.
He had explained that since the President is unfamiliar of the attributes of the lawyers, the Judges are considered the qualified institution to assess the performance of lawyers and thereafter, making recommendations for appointment by the President. This, Nandlall noted, insulates the process from political interference. (G8)