Embattled Supreme Court Registrar, Sita Ramlal yesterday accused the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Carl Singh of poor execution of a 2005-2007programme to reduce the backlog of cases and of “enjoying the rich rewards” of $20.9M of government’s money set aside for the scheme, but the Chancellor has rejected the allegation saying that it is a malicious attempt to mislead.
In a formal complaint to Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS), Dr. Roger Luncheon dated April 29, 2009 Ms Ramlal alleged impropriety saying that the Chancellor executed the project lopsidedly by assigning himself most of the cases, and that he aggrandized $20.9M of the $41.2M expended by the administration for dealing with 1,394 cases of the 2778 cases that were concluded.
Ms Ramlal called for a formal investigation into the matter saying that it demeans and diminishes the Office of the Chancellor, the highest office in the judiciary.
The move by the Registrar further deepened the acrimony which enveloped the High Court in recent weeks after forgery allegations against Ms Ramlal. Legal observers say since the complaint was lodged with the HPS it could trigger uncomfortable exchanges between the executive and the judiciary.
The government backlog reduction exercise fixed $15,000 for every case completed, and the Chancellor was tasked with assigning cases. The project commenced in 2005 and ended in 2007.
Ms Ramlal, who was charged on Monday in an alleged adoption fraud case along with former GDF Chief of Staff Norman McLean and is also currently in court challenging the powers of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) of which the Chancellor is Chairman, referred to the Chancellor’s distribution of cases as inequitable and unconscionable, “given that he had more than fifty percent of the total sum expended in the exercise”.
But the acting Chancellor, who had not been informed of the complaint when Stabroek News contacted him yesterday for a comment, welcomed the call for an investigation and dismissed Ms Ramlal’s allegations for failing to give an accurate account of how the exercise was executed, while noting that approval for payment of completed cases was entirely within the control of the Registrar.
“…My efforts and my expertise which I gave to the exercise were more important than the money, which the Registrar has so improperly disclosed… and I have no apologies to make for the work that I have completed”, the acting Chancellor stated.
The Chancellor said that he worked assiduously to reduce the backlog as, “the accountability was at my desk”, noting that the backlog was the cause of grave concern to the administration, the judiciary, and the populace, “The backlog is still a burning issue”, he added.
The Chancellor questioned the timing of the Registrar’s complaint noting that the project ended some three years ago. He stated that there had been no prior complaints about assignment of cases.
“…Two years later to raise this issue has nothing more than an ulterior motive”, he added.
Justice Singh confirmed receiving the sum stated by the Registrar, but explained that he met with judges in the High Court prior to the project commencing to provide every necessary detail, adding that there were some reservations by a few judges upon hearing of the requirement to work outside of working hours.
In the complaint to Luncheon, the Registrar said that the project envisaged an equitable distribution to all judges where the work should have been executed outside normal work hours for judges; after 3 pm and on Saturdays if necessary. She said that the cases to be assigned were matters that were ripe for hearing and did not include abandoned or deserted matters.
Ms Ramlal charged that the exercise made no impact on the backlog that exists in the High Court, adding that the entire project was badly executed by the acting Chancellor, “who assigned himself most of the abandoned cases sitting in the Registry and not hearing matters, thus enjoying the rich rewards…”
She also accused him of disposing of cases which were abandoned rather than hearing matters to attract payment of the $15,000 per case, saying that these included matters that were settled and withdrawn.
However, the Chancellor noted that there was an agreement among the judges of the High Court that they would weed out the dead and abandoned cases first, before moving onto those matters ripe for hearing. Justice Singh said also that no qualifications were imposed in the exercise.
The Chancellor challenged the Registrar to produce the conditions as defined in the exercise, “conditions that she now clamours for”. He said also, that his information on the impact of the project differs from the Registrar, adding that the project significantly reduced the volume of cases in the High Court.
Further, Ramlal stated that Justice Singh is the first Chancellor in history who has assumed the jurisdiction as a High Court judge, a jurisdiction he does not have, according to her.
“What is disturbing and improper is the fact that after Justice (Ian) Chang.SC was sworn to perform the functions of the Chief Justice on December 10, 2007, the then acting Chancellor Carl Singh came down to the High Court, took over the Chief Justice’s court and worked to discharge hundreds of cases…this means that in effect there were two Chief Justices functioning at the same time”, Ms Ramlal contended.
She said that the Chancellor acted in such a manner because he had intended to clear an advance payment of $4.2M given to him on June 26, 2007 and on August 10, 2007 respectively, for cases that were not yet heard and completed.
Additionally, she charged that he flouted the law by not obeying the declaratory order of Justice William Ramlal that he could not perform the functions of Chief Justice and Chancellor at the same time by functioning as a High Court judge to dispose of cases.
