| “A recusal by the acting CJ will lead to a constitutional disaster and the subversion of the rule of law,” C.V SatramBy Kiana Wilburg There is a high possibility that Justice William Ramlal, who is pushing the case of tax-free income for all judgesDr. FentonRamsahoye S.Cof the High Court, may not get a hearing.His lawyer, C.V Satram, is of the belief that Chief Justice (CJ), Ian Chang, may recuse himself from the case on the basis that he has an interest.This is in spite of the fact that Satram wrote to the Chief Justice on January 28, stating that he and his client have no objection to him hearing the matter. Chang did not respond to the letter.Currently, Chang and the acting Chancellor, Carl Singh, are the only two judicial officers benefitting from that privilege. Since Chang is the only Constitutional Judge, if he recuses himself, no other adjudicator would be able to hear the matter because they would have an interest.The respondent in the case is the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall. According to court documents, Justice Ramlal wants a declaration that the continued deduction of income tax from his judicial income is an unlawful alteration of the terms and conditions of him being a Judge.He is also requesting that a declaration be made that he is entitled upon retirement to a monthly pension and retirement benefits of not less than seven-eighths of his salary at the time of his retirement.The relief would also include an order for constitutional compensation, damages and refund of income tax together with interest, of at least $34M.With good reason to believe that the acting CJ may recuse himself on the case which will be called on Wednesday, Ramlal’s lawyers filed, on Friday last, a submission to further cement why his client must be given aHouse Speaker,Raphael Trotmanconstitutional hearing.The document reiterates that since the applicant is entitled to a hearing and determination of his case, there is no objection to the acting CJ who has no personal or pecuniary interest in the matter whereas all the judges of the High Court have such an interest.The case, the lawyer argued, is not about complaint against the dispensation in favour of the Chancellor or the CJ neither is the dispensation under challenge. The denial of it to other judges is what the crux of the matter is.“The applicant submits that the acting Chief Justice who sits to hear constitutional proceedings in the High Court may properly hear and determine the matter in the usual course of constitutional business and further submits that the acting CJ should not recuse himself because should he do so, the matter will be subject to inevitable and unnecessary delay,” the lawyer added in the legal document.He posited that the CJ hearing the case would not diminish in anyway the constitutional integrity of the High Court. He then reaffirmed Ramlal’s right to a hearing and determination of his constitutional motion within a reasonable time in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution which guarantees fundamental rights.Satram believes that the circumstances of this matter are special and as a matter of necessity, the motionAPNU Shadow Minister of Finance, Carl Greenidgeought to be heard by the CJ.He emphasized, “A recusal by the acting CJ on the basis that he has a pecuniary interest will lead to a constitutional disaster and the subversion of the rule of law.”Other members of the political opposition have also expressed their view on the case. But Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, refrained from commenting directly on the matter.He said that the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government that stands alongside the Executive and the National Assembly. Therefore the doctrine of comity and equal respect would dictate that “we shouldn’t interfere in each other’s business.”For this reason, Trotman said that he was never in favour of the High Court getting involved in parliamentary affairs. Hence he declined to comment specifically on what is happening in the judiciary arising out of Justice Ramlal’s case though he believes that the case is an interesting one.“The judges are bright enough to sort out what is obviously an internal matter, and to some extent, a fight with the executive branch. The Parliament should be ready to play its part to make laws to address or give effect to any decisions that are made arising out of the legal action filed,” he added.A Partnership for National Unity’s (APNU) Shadow Minister of Finance, Carl Greenidge, who is usually brutally candid about his thoughts on the judiciary, finds Ramlal’s case to be justified and in the interest of equality.Greenidge said that the case where two persons were allowed to enjoy the “tax-free income” benefit “is an example of how the PPP Presidency uses their privileged position to line their own pockets to try to buy the allegiance of key officials.”He said that the matter “reeks of demoralization and is one reason why the PPP Government attracts the label corrupt and kleptocratic.”Queen’s Counsel,Cheap Jerseys From China, Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye S.C, said that all the judges should get the facility or none at all.He said that the Chancellor and the acting CJ have been singled out probably because in addition to their judicial duties they have some administrative duties.However, Sir Ramsahoye asserted that he doubts the number of administrative duties that they have is so heavy that it would justify a different treatment.The former Attorney General said that “it is demoralizing and demeaning” for only two judicial officers to enjoy tax-free income. He stated that it creates a class system which is “unfair and unreal” for they all perform almost the same judicial functions. |
