AG pussyfoots with operational Judicial Review Act

May 09, 2018 News

— creates barrier to certain reliefs of Court

Judicial Review is that area of the law which guards against an abuse of power by any public officer, including ministers of government, any public authority or statutory tribunal.
The Judicial Review Act makes provisions for a citizen who is aggrieved by an act, omission, or decision of any public officer, to mount a challenge in the Court.

Attorney General: Basil Williams

The Act makes provision for citizens to challenge public authorities on the grounds that their actions are unlawful, illegal, and capricious, contrary to some written law, ultra vires or violates the rules of natural justice.
Under the Act, a special authority resides with the High Court to review the Act or omission complained against and to strike it down or to compel and stop the performance of a public or statutory duty in the face of a refusal or neglect to do so.
However, the Judicial Review Act which was passed in Parliament in 2010 is yet to be enforced. Under the Act, the Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs is empowered to issue the publication of an order signed by him in the official Gazette to bring Judicial Review into operation.
Basil Williams, the subject Minister, is being accused of pussyfooting on the issue. His failure to act has resulted in at least one court action brought against him.
The action was filed by Former Attorney General and PPP Member of Parliament, (MP) Anil Nandlall.
Last year, Nandlall applied for an Order Nisi of Mandamus compelling the Attorney General to bring into operation the Judicial Review Act of 2010.
The matter is being heard before Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire. In his application, Nandlall noted that the Attorney General has failed, refused or neglected to bring the Judicial Review Act into operation, despite being requested to do so.
He explained that when the Act was passed in 2010, it could not have been brought into force since the old High Court rules made no provision for Judicial Review.
For over a century, the reliefs in this regard were granted via the medium of the prerogative writs that provide for quashing, compelling and staying orders.
The Judicial Review Act provides that the rules of procedure in respect of how the Court is to be approached by a litigant to access remedies under the said Act are contained in the “rules of court”.
The “rules of court” referred are the new Civil Procedure Rules, since the “rules of court” which were extant at the time, made no provisions whatsoever for judicial review applications.
According to Nandlall, the new CPR elaborately sets out the procedure by which the remedies contained in the judicial review can be applied for in the court.
He noted that the issue has become even more complex with a recent ruling by the Caribbean Court of Justice, (CCJ).
The CCJ in a ruling in the case of the Medical Council of Guyana versus Jose Ocampo Trueba outlined that the Crown Office Rules of 1906 were no longer applicable and that Guyana’s Civil Procedure Rules 2016 should be applied to all civil proceedings.
In challenging the Medical Council’s refusal of his application for full registration, Dr Ocampo filed an application for judicial review in the High Court. According to the CCJ, Judicial review is a court proceeding where a judge assesses the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
However, the CCJ also ruled that Guyana’s Civil Procedure Rules 2016 should be applied to all civil proceedings.
In light of Williams’ refusal to make judicial review available to litigants in Guyana, the Former Attorney General says lawyers are faced with unnecessary barriers in seeking certain reliefs by the Court.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News