A key constitutional lawsuit filed by a retired jurist against the country’s Attorney General and a former chief justice has moved one step closer to trial after a High Court judge dismissed nearly half of the original claims for lacking reasonable legal grounds, while clearing the path for the remaining allegations to advance to a full hearing.
Retired judge Dr. Sonia Richards launched the suit against former top judiciary head Sir Patterson Cheltenham and the current Attorney General, alleging multiple violations of her constitutional and employment rights during her time in judicial office. In a comprehensive 76-page judgment delivered Friday, Justice Shona Griffith outlined her rationale for dismissing four of Dr. Richards’ core claims, ruling each failed to meet the basic threshold of demonstrating reasonable legal cause for action.
The four dismissed claims included allegations that the two defendants violated Dr. Richards’ right to personal security, her right to protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, her right to fair consideration for a tenure extension, and her right to only be removed from office in line with Sections 84(3) and 84(4) of the national Constitution. These allegations will not proceed to trial.
Despite the dismissals, Justice Griffith preserved multiple key claims that will now move forward. Dr. Richards will be permitted to argue that her right to security of tenure was unlawfully breached, a claim that does not involve allegations of unlawful removal from office. She will also be allowed to pursue her claim that the defendants violated her right to equal protection under the law, though the court ruled she must first formally re-plead the specific circumstances of this alleged breach to clarify her case.
Three separate defamation claims brought by the retired judge against the defendants were also cleared to proceed, with an order that each be argued individually before the court. Two additional private law claims — that Dr. Richards’ employment terms and conditions were breached, and that the defendants failed to uphold their duty of care to her during her tenure — will also move ahead.
To keep the case on track, Justice Griffith issued strict procedural deadlines for both parties. Dr. Richards, as the claimant, has been ordered to file and serve an amended statement of claim that clearly outlines her remaining causes of action and the remedies she is seeking from the court by no later than September 30. Justice Griffith ruled that the claimant’s affidavit submitted in support of her original fixed-date claim on May 7, 2025 will remain valid as evidence for the remaining constitutional and private law claims, unless the court issues a conflicting future order.
Following receipt of the amended statement of claim, the defendants have been granted six weeks to file their formal response and defence. Any reply from the claimant to the defence will follow the timetable set out in existing civil procedure rules. The judge issued a clear warning that failure to meet any of the court-ordered deadlines could result in the non-compliant party having their case dismissed, or being ordered to cover the opposing side’s legal costs.
The case has been adjourned for ongoing case management, and a next hearing will be scheduled before a different judge at a later date. Legal teams for both sides have retained the right to make submissions on the awarding of legal costs related to the pre-trial applications that led to Friday’s ruling.
In her original claim, Dr. Richards alleged that multiple constitutional protections guaranteed to her during her judicial tenure were breached by the defendants. She further claimed that Sir Patterson Cheltenham defamed her through both words and actions during his time as chief justice, and that the state’s treatment of her amounted to professional negligence as well as breach of her employment contract. Dr. Richards is seeking financial damages for the alleged constitutional violations, as well as additional damages for the claimed breaches of her private law rights.
Dr. Richards is represented by a legal team led by Georgia Gibson-Henlin KC, with support from Lalu Hanuman, Lemar Neal, and Stepenie Williams. The defendants are represented by Roger Forde KC, assisted by Nicole Boyce and Rene Forde.