Judge recuses himself from dispute over control of Islamic Cultural Centre
A High Court judge hearing a dispute over the control of the company behind the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland has recused himself from the remainder of the proceedings “in an abundance of caution”, after a barrister made claims of bias and sabotage against him.
Mr Justice David Nolan made the decision after Joseph Sallabi, a barrister who previously purported to act as in-house counsel for the centre’s operator, the Al Maktoum Foundation CLG, sought the judge’s recusal from the proceedings.
On Friday, the judge read in court a letter sent to him by Mr Sallabi earlier this month, in which the barrister accused the judge of sabotaging the proceedings, and “whitewashing” alleged criminal wrongdoing on the part of several directors of the Al Maktoum Foundation.
The judge said he was “fully satisfied” that he’d done nothing wrong over the course of the proceedings. However, the judge said that “in an abundance of caution”, and seeking to avoid a “side show” in the case, he would recuse himself.
Last year, Mr Sallabi brought a case on behalf of Dr Abdel Basset El-Sayed, alleging several of the foundation’s board directors were appointed unlawfully, and seeking to have them removed.
The directors are Ahmad Tahlak, Hesham Abdulla Al Quassim, Khalifa Aldaboos, Mohamed Musabeh Dhahi and Zahid Jami. The men are residents in Dubai, but have their place of business as Roebuck Road, Clonskeagh.
Dr El-Sayed, in sworn written evidence prepared by Mr Sallabi, made allegations of fraud, theft and money laundering against the directors.
Dr El-Sayed subsequently withdrew his case and the allegations, described as “baseless” by Mr Justice Nolan. The judge made an order directing Dr El-Sayed to pay legal costs incurred by the directors.
The mosque attached to the cultural centre in Clonskeagh, south Dublin has recently reopened following a prolonged closure on account of the dispute.
Lawyers for the five directors are also seeking an order for costs against Mr Sallabi. The directors are represented by Lyndon MacCann SC and barrister Niall Ó hÚiginn, instructed by Mason Hayes & Curran.
At Friday’s hearing, Mr Justice Nolan said the costs application would be dealt with by a different judge, after he stated he was recusing himself from the case.
In correspondence sent to Mr Justice Nolan earlier this month, an apparent pre-ligitation letter, Mr Sallabi made various allegations, Mr Justice Nolan said, levelling claims of sabotage and whitewashing of criminality against the judge.
In the letter, Mr Sallabi criticised what the barrister described as the judge’s refusal to hear evidence related to the claims of criminal wrongdoing, the judge said.
Mr Sallabi said the judge exercised “undue influence” on Dr El-Sayed prior to the surgeon’s withdrawing his case, the judge said. Mr Sallabi also criticised the judge’s facilitation of a costs hearing.
“If these actions do not constitute an effective sabotage of High Court proceedings and a whitewashing of criminal activities, money laundering, it is difficult to imagine what would,” the letter read.
The letter went on to accuse Mr Justice Nolan himself of money laundering, the judge said.
Mr Sallabi said the judge had breached his judicial duty, and caused the barrister damage, according to the letter. The judge said Mr Sallabi sought an apology from the judge, and threatened to issue legal proceedings.
Mr Justice Nolan said the letter itself was not grounds for recusal, and that judges are often threatened with litigation.
However, he said that he did not want the recusal application to turn into a “side show”, and said he would accede to the application.
Mr Justice Nolan said the cost hearing would proceed before another judge on the date already assigned.
Last year, Mr Justice Nolan raised concerns regarding Mr Sallabi’s standing to act in the case, and he referred the matter to the Legal Service Regulatory Authority (LSRA) and the King’s Inns.
Separately, Mr Sallabi made a complaint to the Judicial Council accusing Mr Justice Nolan of conducting hearings in the case in an unfair manner, and making defamatory remarks about the barrister in court. The complaint was found to be not admissible by a council committee, the judge said.
