Chancellor explains why the Judicial Service Commission did not expel Sukul


By Kurt Campbell

Sukhu[] – Chancellor of the Judiciary Justice Carl Singh on Wednesday, February 19 confirmed that Justice Rabi Sukul has officially resigned as a Judge of the Court of Appeal of Guyana.

Sukul was asked by the Chancellor to tender his immediate resignation after news surfaced in the international media on February 3 that he was disbarred by the Bar Council of England and Wales for intentionally misleading his client by drafting false grounds of appeal.

When asked why wasn’t action taken against Sukul by the Judicial Service Commission which has the constitutional right to remove him from office against claims that he was being given political protection, the Chancellor said “We only resort to that recourse if a person recognizes that he is confronted with a circumstance that warrants his resignation and doesn’t, if there is a voluntary resignation then there is no need for that constitutional mechanism to be employed.”

However, a statement by the Government Information Agency had said that it was Justice Singh who asked Sukul to resign. The Chancellor is however maintaining that Sukul’s resignation was voluntary having admitted to his disbarment.

“I recognize something irregular had taken place and when he admitted to his disbarment I requested that he resign, we are all Lawyers,” he added. Chancellor Singh was part of a Committee that had reviewed Sukul’s application.

Meanwhile, practicing Attorney-at Law, Christopher Ram had said that the disbarment was a national embarrassment and called for the President to immediately set up an inquiry in the circumstances of his appointment.

Ram had also noted that the offence committed by Sukul in England also takes place in Guyana.

International media reports stated that the bar’s disciplinary tribunal in England heard that Sukul drafted a document to the Court of Appeal setting out initial grounds for an appeal against conviction on behalf of his client, who had been convicted of drugs-related offences.

The tribunal found he had created the document, knowing it to be false, with the intention of misleading his client into believing he had grounds to appeal his conviction, when Sukul knew there were no grounds of appeal.



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.