African Chief Magistrate Juliet Holder-Allen battling the Jagdeo dictatorship & corruption in Guyana
Chief Magistrate breaks silence after four years of forced leave- will not take part in any misconduct hearings
KAIETEUR NEWS: Embattled Chief Magistrate Juliet Holder-Allen, who has been on leave for four years for alleged misconduct, has lashed out against the Judicial Service Commission, claiming that there is misconduct there.
Speaking at a press conference at Capitol News Studios yesterday, Holder-Allen also disclosed that she would not be taking part in any hearings against her, since the officials hearing the complaints are the ones making them.
She said that she was compelled to clear the air after President Bharrat Jagdeo, during a press conference on Saturday at the State House, said that he does not interfere with the Judicial Service Commission, which is mandated to look into alleged wrongdoing by workers in the justice system. She contended that his response to a question about her suggested that she was involved in wrongdoing.
The Chief Magistrate was sent on leave after she was accused of, among other things, interfering in the ruling of another magistrate, whose contract has not been renewed; seeking to chastise former Minister Bibi Shadick on the phone; and for allegedly insulting a Mrs Duff in her court. The Chief Magistrate has denied all these allegations.
According to Holder-Allen, she was under the impression that her forced leave was about to be resolved and was “getting somewhere”.Justice Prem Persaud, Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Carl Singh and Mrs Chandra Jagnandan, whom she described as a typist, are the persons whom she accused of causing her to be off the bench. Mrs Jagnandan signed the letter sending Holder-Allen on leave.
The matter can never be resolved unless former Chancellor of the Judiciary, Madam Desiree Bernard, who is a sitting judge on the Caribbean Court of Justice, returns to Guyana and “explains the mess”, the official said.
Listing her troubles, the official claimed that two lawyers, whom she did not name but whom she inferred were not Guyanese, were trying to poison her with sapodillas and pastries. One of these has since died.
She said that there were death threats, with murdered whistleblower George Bacchus telling her, one day before his death, that she was among a list of persons to be killed.
According to the Chief Magistrate, she is not guilty of any misconduct.She claimed, without stating when, that a group of armed men in a white car came looking for her but were directed to another place.
There are some beliefs among lawyers that High Court judges are making millions of dollars from cases before them that were initiated by a foreign assistance programme. In these matters, judges are paid thousands of dollars to clear out old and backlogged cases.If one wants to talk about misconduct, then this is one instance, and the judges involved should be disbarred for having a financial interest in matters before them.
Reiterating her demands for reinstatement, the Chief Magistrate said that she wanted all her opportunities and all that have been taken away from her.
According to Holder-Allen, she is a lawyer of good standing, who came from a reputable chamber. Therefore, there could be no justification to her being sent on leave by a clerk.
Further, with there being a clear conflict of interest, where the persons making the complaints have to hear her case in the Judicial Service Commission, the Chief Magistrate said that she has drawn the line and will not be part of it.
“I am a defense counsel, and if I cannot represent myself then I am of no use to anyone,” the outspoken magistrate said.
“The situation where there could be a clear and unbiased hearing does not exist, and I have a serious problem with that. Obviously, I have been doing something right.”
According to Holder-Allen, she has no problem standing up for justice, and if there comes a time when a decision is made to relive her of duty, the “campaign for justice” will take a significant turn. “I will lead it.”
She stressed that there are no complaints or cases against her, and she is the one suffering.The Chief Magistrate also disclosed that she is moving to international courts and has signed papers to that effect.The Chief Magistrate questioned why her leave of absence has taken four years, in the absence of any complaints.
The PPP regime, in its racist quest to use all the agencies of Government to marginalize black people, went after this jurist because of her adjudication in the Phantom Killings allegations. How different is this kind of persecution of a black woman from what we saw during the zenith of the apartheid system in South Africa.
Guyanese are entitled to live in a society where race and ethnicity are symbols of our diversity, rather than substantive influence on who gets what and who is hired and fired. The mindset of those running the country has still to evolve to this enlightened state of thinking and formulating. For them it is apaan jaat, yesterday, apaan jaat today, apaan jaat tomorrow. Wake up people.
Ruel Daniels
18 May 08 at 8:56 am
Mrs. Holder-Allen was not frank with the disclosures she made
Dear Editor,
My attention has been directed to reports and letters in the press and to reports on the television concerning the interdiction from duty of the learned Chief Magistrate, Ms Juliet Holder-Allen, consequent upon reports of certain allegations made against her.
She allegedly made statements to the newspapers and television stations concerning her present position – interdiction — which the agencies carried extensively; and the press, goaded by the apparent luscious reports, are publishing letters from readers who make some strong statements based on those reports.
I do not seek to criticise anyone, but based on reports generally published concerning local affairs and situations, I form an impression that we do not have journalists, but cub news reporters.
The report from the learned magistrate will make headlines in any part of the world, and the press and TV stations owe a solemn duty to, at the minimum, seek a comment from the persons whose names were gratuitously and vulgarly banded about in the report.
If that had been done, the public would have been aware that the learned magistrate was not frank with the disclosures she made.
In the first place, she did not disclose the names of all the members of the Commission before whom her matter went, and excluded one of the names, which resulted in the perception that racial considerations were at play. Mrs Chandra Jagnandan is not a member of the Judicial Service Commission, but the Secretary thereof, and her duties include dispatching letters on behalf of the Commission.
And secondly, and more importantly, Mrs. Holder-Allen did not lay bare the fact that the delay in the determination of the issue of her interdiction rests solely on the action being pursued by her and her legal representatives.
When an investigation was to have been held years ago, she approached the High Court to prevent that happening. The matter went to a hearing and the High Court ruled. She has since appealed the ruling of the learned Trial Judge.
She is a lawyer and ought to know that until such time as the matter is finally adjudicated upon by the courts, the status quo remains.
I hope you publish this letter fully in order that those to whom this matter is so important may become duly aware of the facts.
Prem Persaud
http://kaieteurnewsgy.com/Archive/080520.html
Prem Persaud
21 May 08 at 10:34 pm
I have been bombarded with calls from persons from the media fraternity in relation to a letter that has supposedly been sent to this forum [Kaieteur News] from Mr. Prem Persaud, retired Justice of Appeal and current member of the Judicial Service Commission, in relation to a matter of which I seemed to have been the main subject.
Basically, I would just like to make certain statements, for the sake of clarity in relation to the following five matters, (in no particular order).
1. That Mrs. Jagnandan had the power to sign a letter of suspension removing me from the Bench.
2. That Mr. Brynmore Pollard was not named.
3. That I had approached the High Court for redress in my matter.
4. That an appeal filed by my lawyers had operated as a stay of the proceedings by the Judicial Service Commission.
5. The “locus standi” of the Judge to reply.
In the first place, I will still maintain that under the law Mrs. Jagnandan has no power under the sun to sign any letter that will affect me negatively in the practice of my profession.
The power to remove me from performing my duties as a Magistrate, or even to be assigned to any other court, resides under the law only with the Chancellor of the Judiciary.
Any letter, therefore, emanating from this source must show on the face of it that it had been issued by the lawful authority. Such powers cannot be delegated. It is written in the law, and the spirit of the law must be obeyed. Anything else is unlawful.
With regards to Mr. Brynmore Pollard not being named, I would simply say that I had named him ad nausaeum in other forums as being a member of the Judicial Service Commission.
However, it always seemed to me that his presence at that forum was as a sort of “lightweight”. I say this because I never once enjoyed the confidence that another lawyer was present on the Commission who understood the issues that I had been trying to raise, in terms of natural justice breaches and other pertinent issues that make the adrenalin of “Blue Blooded’ Advocates flow.
This was just my opinion, and I marked it down to the fact that Parliament had enacted that a “non-practicing” lawyer should represent the interests of the lawyers on the Commission — a travesty as far as I am concerned. I have had to live with this for over 18 years.
I must confess that I am more than a little disturbed at the reference to my actions of approaching the High Court as if I was indulging in some kind of “wrong doing”.
I did notice this same kind of remark from Mr. Cecil Kennard on TV a few nights ago. In fact, he said quite bluntly that it was my “fault” to have approached the High Court.
The reference seems to suggest that I should have accepted what was being done to me, and seems to be in keeping with a perceptible new trend emerging now that certain persons do not have the “right” to access the High Court with a view to having wrong things being done corrected. This is a very sad situation indeed. I simply wish to say that I had every right to apply to the High Court for a determination of any issues as I may wish.
It is my right as a Guyanese, and no one should comment on my exercising that right in such a manner as to suggest that I was not entitled to take that action.
In closing, I wish only to comment on the fact that the letter written by a member of the Judicial Service Commission serves manifestly to provide the evidence of the issues that have been causing me a lot of concern over the years.
One issue relates to “objectivity,” or my perceived lack of it, being applied to me in relation to particular members of this Commission writing letters or making statements in the press about me in relation to professional matters. I have nothing further to say. The case has been proven.
Juliet Holder-Allen
http://kaieteurnewsgy.com/letters.html
Jack
21 May 08 at 10:39 pm