On what basis did the Judicial Service Commission appoint Ravi Sukul?
I read with interest the resignation of Ravi Sukul as appellate Court Judge over the weekend following a request by acting Chancellor Carl Singh for him to do so following reports that he was disrobed for nine months from practice in England following a unanimous recommendation by a five member Committee headed by Michael Baker QC. Sukhul has the right to appeal the decision.
I had questioned his appointment because from reports he had absolutely no judicial experience — never served as a magistrate or a judge — nor was he an outstanding Barrister.
I wonder on what basis did the Judicial Service Commission appoint him by-passing relatively competent persons who were on the ground.
Those who advocated his appointment should hang their heads in shame – that is, if these people could be embarrassed for wrong doings.
I googled Sukhul and the only favourable information about him is that he and one Savita Sukul, a Solicitor, represented an international cricketer Mohamed Asif, in a deportation case after the cricketer was jailed for match fixing. Legal circles in London said that the Guyanese is not known as an outstanding Barrister and his appointment was very surprising.
The question now is did members of the Judicial Service Commission investigate Sukul’s background – did they do due diligence?
According to press reports form Guyana, acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Carl Singh, called for his resignation after he read of his disbarment from the English bar.
I would like to hear comments from the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission as well as the President of the Guyana Bar Association.