Canadian-based Guyanese Attorney, Selwyn Pieters today asked High Court Judge Navindra Singh to recuse himself from the case challenging the legality of the Natural Resources Fund Act over what he described as “judicial hostility” on the part of the judge but Justice Singh declined the application.

Pieters, who along with Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, is representing Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones and Trade Unionist Norris Whitter – the applicants in the matter – told the Court that he has no confidence that Justice Singh will conduct a fair trial based on his posture on Tuesday.

Mr Pieters said given that it was his first appearance before that Court, Senior Counsel Forde attempted to introduce him to Justice Singh.

However, according to him, the judge said “I don’t care to be introduced to Mr Pieters.”

The Attorney further contended that the Judge then proceeded to raise an issue dating back to the 2016 Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the Camp Street Prison Unrest.

But Justice Singh in knocking down the allegations, said there was no basis for him to recuse himself, as such, he declined the request and proceeded with the matter.

Outside the Courtroom, the Attorney maintained his lack of confidence in the judge’s ability to fairly conduct the case.

“Well, I thought that there was some sort of hostility yesterday…and certainly we want a hearing where justice is not only done but seen to be done. We also want the judge to be fair, the judge to be impartial and the judge not to exhibit any bias, and certainly yesterday the conduct of the judge in terms of how he interacted with one of the Counsel in the case, it didn’t display the proper judicial temperament that was expected of a judicial official,” Mr Pieters told reporters.

He said while Justice Singh ruled on the matter, the issue may arise before another Judge, who will have a say in the matter.

Contextualizing the issue, the Attorney said due to the fact that he was appearing before the Judge for the very first time, Mr Forde offered to introduce him to Justice Singh but the reception was not welcoming.

“The judge shook Mr Forde’s hands and greeted him very nicely and when Mr Forde introduced him to me, he backed away and said that he did not want to associate with me in any way. I am just paraphrasing what he said but I am allowed to appear before him because I am a member of the Guyana Bar,” the Legal Counsel explained.

According to him, the Judge appeared “annoyed” over issues that he, Pieters, had raised regarding Guyana’s Judicial System during the 2016 Commission of Inquiry into the Camp Street Prison unrest.

“Seeing that he brought up the prison inquiry in 2016, this was a judge that was sentencing people to over a hundred years in prison, and he was the judge that was responsible for 90% of the Guyana Prison population serving more than 30 years in prison, and so as the lawyer for the government, as the lawyer for the Guyana Prison Service, I made comments, in my submission that the Government has to a geriatric population, aging population in the prison due to the sentencing and that they ought to go back to the sentencing commission recommendations,” he explained.

He said just recently, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) “criticized” the same judge over the hefty sentences he had handed down in the Neesa Gopaul case.

Inside the courtroom, Senior Counsel Forde told Justice Singh that the application made by Mr Pieters was based on the request of their client but the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, who is the first named respondent in the case, objected.

Outside of the courtroom, the Attorney General told reporters that he was shocked when the Attorney asked the High Court Judge to recuse himself.

“The law in relation to a judge rescuing himself, and in relation to bias is very clear. First of all, it is a very serious matter if you ask a judge to rescue him or herself, or you accuse a judge of bias, you have to have substantial ground to support your application or request. You have to show that the judge has some personal interest in the matter, financial or otherwise. Obviously, there was nothing like that alleged, so I considered the application by Mr. Pieters as without basis and completely misplaced,” the Attorney General explained.

The Attorney General said it was for those reasons that he could not have supported the application for Justice Singh to be recused from the matter. (Svetlana Marshall)

Related posts:

Appeal Court Judge stays execution of High Court order against oil company in unlimited parent company guarantee case Full Court grants stay on Granger’s libel trial against Nascimento and Newspaper until determination of Trial Judge issue High Court adjourns case for appointment of substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice following AG’s request; Matter to continue in January High Court throws out AG’s request to discontinue Paul Slowe’s PSC case