See below full statement issued by the Attorney General Chambers:
The unfortunate intemperate sentiments expressed by the Hon. Justice Gino Persaud in respect of certain written submissions made by a team of lawyers from the Attorney General’s Chambers led by yours truly, have regrettably wound themselves into the public domain. In consequence, I am obliged to respond. As leader of the Bar, leaving such infelicitous remarks on the public record without repudiation is simply not an option.
Judges are bound to conduct themselves on the Bench, judiciously, whatever the conduct with which they are confronted. It is for this reason that the majesty of the law in its wisdom imbues them with the exceptional power of contempt “in the face of the Court”. Even in the exercise of this rare power, they are enjoined to do so with a level of calm and sobriety befitting the venerated office which they hold.
Justice Persaud opined that our Written Submissions conveyed a “veiled threat” to the independence of the Judiciary. I reject this interpretation absolutely. The learned Judge expressed some other injudicious ad hominem and disparaging remarks directed to the Office of the Attorney General to which if I am to respond, would cause the learned Judge to descend further. As a result, I exercise due restraint.
In reflecting upon this matter, I am reminded of the sagacious admonitions of the illustrious former Chief Justice of India, Bhagwati, speaking on the conduct of judges on the Bench: “we may observe in conclusion that judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognise that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice.”
For the benefit of the reading public, a contextual background may put the matter in proper perspective. A foreign company filed certain proceedings to register a foreign Arbitral Award in the High Court of Guyana obtained against two Venezuelan State-owned corporations. The clear objective is to enforce the Arbitral Award against monies which the foreign company believes are held by the Government of Guyana as debts to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The Arbitration Act of Guyana provides for objection to the registration of such an award on the ground that its enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of Guyana. Having regard to our current relations with Venezuela and the imposition by the United States (US) of sanctions against the Government of Venezuela, and in particular, one of the companies named in the Arbitral Award, we are of the considered view that it would be contrary to the public policy of Guyana to have the said Award registered and enforced in Guyana.
In our Submissions, we detailed our current border controversy with Venezuela, making copious references to the bellicose threats of invasion, the Venezuelan Referendum, etc. and the continuous misuse by Venezuela of innocent occurrences to accuse Guyana of acting proactively, escalating tensions and of provoking a response from Venezuela. We made reference to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Interim Order which prohibits both parties from taking any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court. We also placed before the Court the Argyle Declaration in which the Presidents of both countries committed not to take steps that will tensions or aggravate the controversy. Against that backdrop, we submitted that it would clearly be injurious to the public interest to facilitate the enforcement of this Award in Guyana.
We further submitted that the two other arms of the Government of Guyana – the Executive and the National Assembly (the Legislature) – have already pledged their unreserved support for Guyana to take a united position on this matter. This position is reflected in Resolution No. 66, which was debated and passed unanimously in the National Assembly on 6 November 2023. We argued that this Resolution expresses the mandate of the citizens of Guyana through their elected representatives in accordance with Article 9 of the Constitution.
We submitted that “it is a justifiable apprehension that if the judicial arm is to extend its processes to be used to allow a foreign company to garnish or levy upon Venezuelan property held by Guyana, such an act will be interpreted, or is capable of being interpreted, as an act of aggression against Venezuela, and an act, if not violative of the letter, would certainly be violative of the spirit, of both the Argyle Declaration and the ICJ’s Interim Measures. In short, it would therefore be patently injurious to the national interest and public policy of Guyana for this Honourable Court to lend its jurisdiction to such a process.”
We also examined the various case law authorities that evaluated what in law would constitute public policy and its violations. In fact, Paragraph 71 of our Submissions which Justice Persaud found offensive, largely consisted of a quote from one of the decided cases. It reads:
“Should this Court register the Applicant’s Arbitral Award, such action would not only be contrary to public policy, but would be “wholly offensive to the ordinary, reasonable and fully informed member of the public on whose behalf the powers of the powers of the State are exercised.” [see Richardson v Mellish (1824) 2 Bing 229].”
Lawyers by their very Oath are duty bound to defend the causes of their clients fearlessly but respectfully. Many have proudly suffered the loss of liberty in this pursuit. The profession is not for timorous souls. I reiterate that no disrespect was conveyed in our Submissions. Indeed, they were strong and emphatic. The justice of the case demanded it. The nation’s sovereignty is at stake. There is no greater cause. The strongest of language and the most passionate advocacy would not be sufficient. I have no regrets whatsoever. The Judge’s decision will be appealed. A complaint to the Judicial Service Commission remains an option. I never intentionally disrespect courts, nor will I tolerate disrespect. At least, the Office which I hold deserves better.
I close, once again, with the guiding sentiments of the Supreme Court of India:
“Judicial restraint in this regard might better be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process,” Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan and Others 14 (1990) 2 SCC 533.
The post ‘I never intentionally disrespect courts, nor will I tolerate disrespect’ – AG responds to Justice Gino Persaud appeared first on News Room Guyana.
