ATTORNEY General, Mr. Doodnauth Singh, S.C has appealed against the decision handed down by Justice William Ramlall ruling that Chief Justice Carl Singh cannot act as Chancellor of the Judiciary and operate as Chief Justice at the same time.

Justice Ramlall’s ruling was in relation to a motion brought by senior lawyers known as ‘The Committee for the Defence of The Constitution’ that included , Rex Mc Kay, S.C., Keith Massiah, S.C. and Miles Fitzpatrick, S.C.
The grounds of Appeal are:-

(a) The decision of the Learned Trial Judge is unreasonable and erroneous in that he misinterpreted Articles 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 and 198 of the Constitution.

(b) The Learned Trial Judge erred in determining that the Constitution does not permit the simultaneous holding of the offices of Chancellor and Chief Justice by the same person.

(c) The Learned Trial Judge erred in determining that the Constitution does not permit one person performing the functions of the offices of the Chancellor and Chief Justice at the same time.

(d) The judge erred in determining that the Constitution does not allow the Chief Justice whilst holding the office of Chief Justice, to also perform the functions of the office of Chancellor.

(e) The judge erred in determining that it is not permissible for His Honour Chief Justice Carl Singh to perform the functions of Chancellor, whilst performing the functions of Chief Justice.

(f) The judge erred in determining that the composition of the Judicial Service Commission has been altered below that provided for by the Constitution, in that the office of Chancellor and Chief Justice are vested in the same person.

(g) Other grounds to follow when the decision of the Learned Trial Judge is available, the Attorney General disclosed.

According to the grounds of appeal, the relief sought from the Court of Appeal is that the judgment of the trial judge be reversed, varied and be set aside and the Appellant be awarded costs in the Court of Appeal and in the Court below.