…Chief Justice tells Nandlall after he withdrew contempt case against GECOM officials
-admits he had no evidence against Mingo, others
By Svetlana Marshall
ONE day before the court was set to rule in the contempt case – Reeaz Holladar v. Returning Officer for Region Four Clairmont Mingo and others, Anil Nandlall – the applicant’s attorney – filed a notice or withdrawal due to lack or sufficient evidence.
That last minute decision, which came three months after the case was initiated, did not sit well with Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire, who chided Nandlall for wasting the court’s time when he was well aware that the application, as filed, did not meet the threshold for a contempt of court proceeding.
“I am very sorry Mr. Nandlall, this is most unacceptable,” the Chief Justice told the attorney, during the hearing of the High Court case on Thursday (June 11) via Zoom, even as he attempted to justify his decision. The Notice of With-drawal and Discontinuance was filed on Wednesday (June 10) by Nandlall.
Though not handing down her ruling in the matter, Justice George-Wiltshire said that “the evidence is very, very deficient,” and in effect, Nandlall would have wasted the court’s time.
THE APPLJCA TION
The contempt of court case was filed by a private citizen – the late Reeaz Holladar – over an alleged failure, by the returning officer, to adhere to the orders handed down by the High Court on March 11, 2020.
The Chief Justice had ruled that the declaration of votes made by the Region Four Returning Officer, on March 5, was unlawful, on the grounds that there was substantial non- compliance with Section 84 (I) of the Representation of the People Act when the Statements of Poll (SOPs) for District Four were tabulated. She U1en ordered that the verification process, which was interrupted, be resumed or restarted, and that the SO Ps be tabulated and projected in the presence of persons entitled to be there under the law. One day after (March 12), Nandlall, on behalf of Holladar, filed Contempt of Court proceeding against Mingo: the Chief Elections Officer, Keith Lowenfield; and the Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice Claudette Singh, among others, thouh cognisant that there was insufficient evidence to prove his case. The case was first heard on March 13 in the light Court, and during its hearing,, the Chief Justice made her orders pellucid. A second declaration was later made that day (March 13 ), by Mingo.
NO EVIDENCE
When the matter came up on Thursday (June 11 ), Nandllall, who appeared virtually in association with Attorney-at-Law Davindra Kissoon on behalf of the applicant, apologised for his actions.
He explained that the Contempt of Court proceeding was filed wider exigent circun1stances on March 12. “Your Honour, our application to file a supplementary Affidavit was not favourably considered, and we felt it best your Honour, in the better interest in the administration of justice, that we get an opportunity to put before the court, very relevant evidence, which would not have been available to us, at the time when we filed the application,” Nandlall explained.
Nandlall conceded that when he was repeatedly asked whether or not he was proceeding with the case in its current form, he responded in the affirmative. “Your Honour, we are dealing here with a situation tha1 is very fluid and things can change at any moment, and E felt it unsafe to withdraw the matter prematurely,” he told the court, while noting that he was awaiting the completion of the recount of the ballots cast at the General and Regional Elections. In an apologetic tone, NandJall asked that tl1e matter be withdrawn.
But Senior Counsel Neil Boston, who appeared virtually on behalf of Mingo, the CEO and Chair of GECOM, objected, arguing that Nandlall is attempting to go through a “side door” after making damning allegations against the GECOM officials. Nandlall, he said, could not have substantiate the allegations in his submissions to the High Court, a there was no evidence.
Notwithstanding the clear lack of evidence, Boston said. Nandlall, on behalf of his client, by filing the contempt proceedings, sought to have the GECOM Chair, the Chief Elections Officer, and the Returning Officer, together with the three government-nominated commissioners – Vincent Alexander, Desmond Trotman and Charles Corbin – committed to prison. “At the time when he made the application, there was no evidence to support the application for the declaration that Ms. Claudette Singh, Mr. Keith Lowenfield, Mr. Clairmont Mingo, Mr. Vincent Alexander, Mr. Charles Corbin as well as Mr. Desmond Trobnan should be committed to prison. Obviously, from day one on the March 12, this proceeding was not proceeded in good faith. It was not proceeded in good faith,” Boston argued. Further to that, days after Senior Counsel
Neil Boston the application was filed, the applicant died on March 28, and Nandlall, Boston explained, filed another application, on April 7, seeking to have the late Holladar substituted by Padmini Bhiro as the respondent. He submitted that Nandlall did not have the authority to withdraw the matter because Holladar is now deceased, and therefore asked the court to hand down its decision.
Nandlall, in response, admitted that he erred by failing to withdraw the application earlier.
UNACCEVTABLE
In deliberating on the matter, the Chief Justice reminded that Nandlall was, on more than one occasion, asked whether there was sufficient evidence to pursue the case. “I raised wi1ether the affidavits a filed, from very early, whether the affidavits as filed met the threshold for contempt proceedings. I have my notes, where you said you appreciated the court’s concerns in this regard but yet you proceeded,” the Chief Justice reminded. Submissions were made, inclusive of authorities, during the course of the case. Justice George-Wiltshire said it was only after she announced the date for ruling, that Nandlall signalled his intention to withdraw the matter.
“I am sorry Mr. Nandlall, this is most unacceptable, most unacceptable,” the Chief Justice said, as she reprimanded the Attorney. Justice George-Wiltshire said that from the “get-go”, Nandlall should have known that there was insufficient evidence, as she dismissed his explanation that the situation was fluid.
The Chief Justice, before granting permission for the case to be withdrawn, substituted Bhiro as administer of Holladar’s Estate for the purpose of the contempt proceedings.
Justice George-Wiltshire then awarded the cost of $150,000 each to Mingo, the CEO and the GECOM Chair a total of $450,000 – from the Estate of Holladar. lnitially, the Chief Justice had signalled her intention to impose “wasted cost” on Nandlall, but Kissoon intervened, begging for the court’s mercy, even as he too admitted that the evidence against Mingo and the other GECOM officials was “thin.” “I will show some mercy on Mr. Nandlall on this occasion. You have been well represented by Mr. Kissoon but really and truly, you should have paid the wasted cost order,” she said.
The case was heard via zoom as a result of emergency measures instituted to prevent the press of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_12_2020