Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil Williams is once again facing the heat over yet another verbal attack against the judiciary.Williams, speaking in the capacity as Chairman of the People’s National Congress (PNC) to the party’s General Council over the weekend, conveyed the impression that the judiciary is plotting against the Government.“For the first time in 23 years, orders have been made by Judges in our courts against the President, Prime Minister and Attorney General, without giving them a hearing,” he is quoted as saying.Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Basil WilliamsBut his contention is deemed as another unwarranted assault on the integrity of the judiciary and has already been described as another in a series of attempts to sap the judiciary of its independence and autonomy.Former Attorney General Anil Nandlall explained that to his knowledge, no order has been granted against President David Granger without a hearing and he called upon the Attorney General to produce evidence to support his wild assertions.Nonetheless, Nandlall pointed out that in any event, it is trite and settled law that though the President is personally immune from suit, his actions are not.Former Attorney GeneralAnil Nandlall“They are lawfully challengeable by proceedings filed against the Attorney General. A number of legal challenges have been filed against presidential actions, decisions and conduct through the Attorney General, over the past 23 years,” he stated.Nandlall further explained that presidential actions and decisions are not exempted and if the justice of the case demands it, then conservatory orders can be issued and have known to be granted, ex-parte, against such actions/decisions.With regards to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General on the other hand, Nandlall posited that in the eyes of the law, they do not enjoy any special authority.“They stand before the law on the same footing as every other public officer. In fit and proper cases, ex-parte orders can be made against them,” he explained.The legal luminary added, “There is only one exception. In private law matters, prohibitory or coercive orders cannot be made against the State, as per the State Liabilities and Proceedings Act. However, this Act has no applicability in constitutional or public law proceedings. Therefore, it is perfectly proper and lawful for ex-parte orders to be made against the Prime Minister and the Attorney General in appropriate cases in constitutional or public law litigation.”Nandlall surmised that Williams’ intention was to mislead a substantial political block of persons in this country and to pit them against the judiciary by dishonestly conveying the impression that the judiciary is against them.He contended that this “ominous and dangerous development” drags the judiciary baselessly into the political realm which can result in an erosion of public confidence in the legal system.“It is equally clear that the Attorney-General is laying the foundation to cast further blame on and to ascribe more improper motives to the judiciary whenever they do not rule in accordance with his expectations, irrespective of how weak the cases are or, however infantile and misconceived the legal submissions may be,” Nandlall stated.He posited that no democratic society governed by the rule of law can afford to stay silent in the face of these atrocities.“The judiciary must function fearlessly and operate in an atmosphere free from fear. This constant barrage of attacks and intimidation must end now,” the former Attorney General emphasised. These attacks against the judiciary came after the Chancellor, Justice Carl Singh dismissed a State-sponsored appeal which ultimately quashed the racial incitement charge brought against former President Bharrat Jagdeo by a private citizen.
AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREOregon Ducks football players get stuck on Disney ride during Rose Bowl eventTenenbaum, 37, an attorney from Westlake Village, put his name on the ballot for the 24th Congressional District race on March 10, after learning that Gallegly was about to retire. Gallegly did announce his retirement. But, after realizing his last-minute announcement was about to touch off a bizarre political situation in which Tenenbaum – a Gallegly critic and a political unknown – would be the only GOP candidate, Gallegly decided not to retire after all. In recanting his retirement, Gallegly promised that if he wins this election, it will be his last. On Friday, Gallegly said that proclaiming himself a lame duck from the beginning of the campaign has not hurt his image or his local fundraising efforts. “We’ve been very up front and very honest with everyone on this,” Gallegly said. He said the $87,864 he raised between Jan. 31 and March 31 was mostly from unsolicited donations. Tenenbaum’s challenge, Gallegly said, has not been a factor in his efforts. “We give 100 percent in everything that we’ve done. We don’t let someone else establish how we run our campaign,” he said. Gallegly has about $1.1 million cash on hand, an aide said. Tenenbaum filed his statement of candidacy – a form that every new candidate must fill out within 15 days of raising or spending $5,000 – on April 3. He has until April 23 to designate a principal campaign committee and disclose his donations, according to the FEC. [email protected] (202) 662-8731160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! WASHINGTON – Despite his surprising decision to retire, then his change of his mind, Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Thousand Oaks, has raised nearly $90,000 for his 11th and final congressional race, according to campaign finance reports released Friday. Meanwhile, Michael Tenenbaum, Gallegly’s challenger for the GOP nomination, recently passed the $5,000 reporting threshold and is expected to file a campaign disclosure report within 15 days. On Friday, he said his campaign is financially healthy, but declined to talk dollars and cents. “I will make all the required disclosures under federal election law,” he said.