Owing to a request from the Attorney General, the hearing of the challenge to the non-appointment of a substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice was postponed from last Tuesday and has now been set for January 11th, 2023 at 1:30 pm.
At a case management conference (CMC) back in September, Justice Damone Younge had fixed November 22nd for oral arguments.
In a letter, however, to the Court dated Monday, November 21st, 2022 Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC—the Respondent— in the matter, said that he wanted to personally present the arguments, which he said was being hindered from because of his attendance before the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands.
Nandlall was part of the delegation from Guyana which travelled to the Netherlands earlier this month where the World Court was hearing arguments in the case regarding the decades-old border controversy between Guyana and Venezuela.
Nandlall said that given the public importance of the matter regarding the judicial appointments, he wants an opportunity to deliver the arguments himself.
His request, however, attracted some ire from Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde for the applicant; who in a responding correspondence to Justice Younge objected to any adjournment being granted.
In Forde’s letter to the Court dated Tuesday, November 22nd, 2022 which was also seen by the Stabroek News, he impressed upon the Judge to have the arguments proceed as scheduled, specifically underscoring the public importance of the case.
He said that citizens were “entitled to a just and timely” determination of the matter and that no adjournment should be granted unless “absolutely necessary.”
Forde said that an adjournment was “not necessary” but rather “preferred” by the AG, to whom he said a number of options were available, including, but not limited to joining the proceedings remotely.
Forde then went on to reference the battery of lawyers from the Attorney General’s Chambers, who are on record in the matter and who he said Nandlall could have assigned to present the arguments in his stead.
Stating that Nandlall had not explained why joining remotely, or assigning another State counsel—not limited to the Solicitor General—would have been insufficient, Forde said that a matter of such public importance requires being disposed of expeditiously.
Against that background, he asked that no adjournment be granted and that the hearing proceed as previously scheduled.
He then did, however, add, that if any adjournment was granted, it ought to be brief and suggested that the AG provide his next five available dates, so that “justice can be delivered as soon as practicable.”
When the matter was called on November 22nd, Justice Younge confirmed being in receipt of both letters and noted Forde’s concerns.
She, however, made it clear that given the Court’s diary, there were no remaining dates before the end of this year, on which she could facilitate the hearing.
The Judge said she had no issue with the request for the adjournment and appreciates the importance and urgency of the matter, pointing out that having regard to the diary, that was the reason she had set aside November 22nd to hear the arguments as it was the only available time the Court had.
Attorney Selwyn Pieters who appears in association with Forde said that they did not have a problem with the Court granting the adjournment, but asked that it be brief so that the hearing could be scheduled as expeditiously as possible.
Justice Younge then announced the earliest possible date now available as being January 11th, 2023; while making it clear that that was the final date being set for the oral arguments.
She said that if the AG is not in a position to proceed with his oral arguments on that date, the Court will direct him to rely on whatever written submissions he would have laid over; adding that that directive goes for both sides.
The action filed by the main opposition APNU+AFC contends that President Irfaan Ali is in “gross dereliction and abdication of the duty” and has no “lawful excuse” for not consulting with Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton, on the substantive appointments of a Chancellor and Chief Justice.
The coalition wants the Court to declare that Ali has in fact failed to consult with Norton for substantive officer holders for the top two judicial posts.
