| Embattled Supreme Court Registrar Sita Ramal could face another legal challenge this time from Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Carl Singh, over a letter she had written to the Head of the Presidential Secretariat.A release from the Office of the Chancellor stated that Justice Carl Singh is both pained and disgusted at what is described as the nasty, scurrilous and baseless attempt by the registrar to sensationalise a non-issue.The press release made reference to the present battle by the Registrar to fight forgery charges, which were imposed on her last week,Benson Mayowa Jersey, noting that the Acting Chancellor would not be surprised if there are further attempts in a “vain endeavour to provide company for Miss Ramlal in the disgusting mess in which she is presently mired”.The contents of the Registrar’s letter to Dr. Roger Luncheon suggest that there were financial improprieties by the Acting Chancellor in the discharge of functions relating to a programme aimed at reducing the backlog of cases in the high court.The government had agreed to pay judges $15,000 for every case completed from the backlog.It was suggested that the project was lopsidedly executed.In her letter to Dr. Luncheon, the Registrar had observed that the project envisaged an equitable distribution of cases to all judges.She had pointed out that cases to be assigned were to be those that were ripe for hearing and did not include abandoned or deserted matters.It was stated that the Acting Chancellor dealt with matters that were abandoned,Jerseys Wholesale, settled matters and matters that were withdrawn.According to the Registrar,Air Max 97 Halvalla, the Acting Chancellor came down to the High Court and took over the Chief Justice’s court and worked to discharge hundreds of cases, after Justice Chang was sworn to perform the functions of the Chief Justice, and this was an endeavour to clear advance payments for work not yet completed.Miss Ramlal also suggested that the Acting Chancellor flouted an order of Justice William Ramlal that he could not perform the functions of Chief Justice and Acting Chancellor at the same time.In response to the allegations made by the Registrar in her letter to the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, the Chancellor’s Office in its press release to the media stated that at the commencement of the exercise, a meeting of all the judges was convened.The judges were informed that there was no compulsion for any judge to participate in the exercise and that cases would be assigned on the request of a judge.“The Registrar’s assertion that there was to be equitable distribution of cases is pure hogwash. Such an arrangement would have carried with it an element of compulsion, which the exercise did not have,” the Chancellor’s release stated.The release went on to point out that apart from the Acting Chancellor, only Justice William Ramlal showed interest in and had any significant input in the exercise.The Acting Chancellor said that he finds it strange that the Registrar has made no comment on the income derived by Justice William Ramlal from “his commendable interest in,Adidas NMD Wholesale Price, and contribution to the exercise”.The Acting Chancellor categorically rejected as being a disgusting untruth, the Registrar’s assertion that after the appointment of Justice Chang, he came back to the High Court and discharged hundreds of cases.The release said that he completed all matters for which notices had been served on the parties before the court, before he left his chambers in the High Court but once having moved chambers, he never returned to discharge hundreds of cases.With regards to the Registrar’s assertion that he flouted the law, the Acting Chancellor said he had no recollection of ever having been served with a copy of the order of Justice Ramlal,Cheap Jerseys From China, which would have disclosed to him the terms of the said order.He said that he only became aware of the judge’s decision from media reports.The Chancellor’s Office questioned why two years after the exercise came to and consequent upon the termination of her appointment as Accounting Officer of the Supreme Court, the Registrar now sees it fit to write to Dr. Luncheon about the backlog exercise.“The Acting Chancellor sees the Registrar’s letter to the Head of the Presidential Secretariat as nothing more than an attempt to intimidate him. The Registrar’s letter to Dr. Luncheon contains a number of inaccuracies and falsehoods.It contains language that is defamatory of the Acting Chancellor who over the next few days will be pursuing the legal options available to him,Levn�� Obuv Vyprodej,” the release said. |
