High Court Judge Justice Jude Nanayakkara will deliver his ruling on October 14th in the matter where prominent lawyer Richard Naidu is appealing against the High Court’s decision against setting aside the ex-parte order in relation to committal proceedings against Naidu and to not let Naidu’s counsel to cross examine the Attorney General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
Naidu allegedly posted on his Facebook page a picture of a judgement in a case represented by his associate that had the word 'injunction' misspelt, and then made some comments that he was pretty sure the applicant wanted an injunction.
While making submissions, the King’s Counsel Martin Daubney says the Attorney General should have but failed to disclose his personal animus against Naidu.
He says the Attorney General is no different from any other litigant and of all people in the country, he ought to be apolitical and that means his approach to ex-parte is not to be beyond reproach.
The King’s Counsel says in theory, the Attorney General should not have anything personal against Naidu and there is nothing to be gained or lost by him while Naidu has literally everything to lose.
He further says the court has made fundamental errors on what transpired on the 26th of July.
He says on the 26th of July, the matter was listed on the cause list for mention and the parties came to court in full expectation that it was for mention.
He says according to the transcript for the proceedings on the 26th of July, the Judge, Justice Jude Nanayakkara had said he would prefer to first deal with the setting aside application.
He says Jon Apted who is Naidu’s other lawyer moved the application however, the Judge understood it as his submissions while, the Attorney General’s lawyer, Gul Fatima had only given her preliminary objection.
Daubney says Justice Nanayakkara had said Apted’s submissions were noted while Apted rose to express their desire to cross-examine the Attorney General.
He says Apted then persisted to have his summons heard but the response was that he should have filed an application to have his summons heard and to cross-examine the Attorney General.
The King’s Counsel says the impression conveyed by the Judge inaccurately represent what actually occurred in court and the effect of the misapprehension led to the denial of Naidu’s fundamental rights and one of them is right to be heard on his submissions.
He adds Naidu has constitutional rights to an oral hearing and to seek to cross-examine the Attorney General.
In response, the Attorney General’s lawyer, Gul Fatima says both appeals should be struck out to avoid any further costs.
She says this has been brought to only delay substantive committal proceedings and this is a clear abuse of processes.
Fatima says they are using this argument as an excuse to take focus away from their poor case management skills.
She further says submissions were made by Apted on the 26th of July and he was given opportunities to continue with his oral submissions but he had said no.
Fatima says the Attorney General can bring forward proceedings as he is entitled to do so.
She says this is a desperate attempt to disregard the offending post.
Fatima says there is nothing to show the Attorney General believed the offending post was not contemptuous and this is a very grave allegation.
Fatima says just pulling an appearance to stack up a bar table is something an officer of the court should not be doing and they are not supposed to come for photo ops.
Meanwhile, the hearing on the committal proceedings will take place on the 10th and 11th of November.
Stay tuned for the latest news on our radio stations
