Judges gearing up for integrity battle

JUDGES are gearing up for battle with the State over the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000 which states that they must declare their assets and those of their spouses.

Although the 2000 Act states that judges and magistrates must declare their assets, they have never done so. With the Integrity in Public Life Prescribed Forms becoming available shortly, judges and magistrates will now be required to declare their assets. The only issue is whether it will be done retroactively as stated by the chairman and members of the Integrity Commission to the Joint Select Committee of Parliament, or whether the Act will have to be amended further to clear up any ambiguities. A top judicial source told Newsday last night that judges are very upset that they will be required to declare their assets and those of their spouses as soon as the forms are available. He said the legislation alters the terms of service of judges and that it impinges on the independence of the judiciary.

The source said the decision for judges to declare their assets was unconstitutional and even suggested that some judges may decide to take the matter to court to challenge the constitutionality of the Act. He asked, “Who will then hear the case in court if the judges take action? Is it a matter of himself hearing himself?” he asked. He pointed out that section 136 (6) of the constitution states that the salaries and allowances of office holders, such as judges and magistrates, must not be altered to their disadvantage after their appointments. The judicial source said if judges are asked to declare their assets, the Judicial and Legal Service Commission may find it difficult in the future in attracting suitably qualified persons to sit on the Bench. Neither Chief Justice Sat Sharma and Attorney General John Jeremie were available for comment last night.

Former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, who was responsible for the 2000 Act said yesterday that then Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide raised the issue of judges being included in the net of persons to declare their assets. Maharaj said he took the matter to Cabinet which decided to delete judges and magistrates from the Act.  But Maharaj said the PNM which was in Opposition said they were not going to support the Bill if judges were left out. “The Opposition demanded that the Government amend the Bill so that the Integrity Commission would have under its jurisdiction judges, magistrates, senators and all members of State Boards and statutory authorities,” Maharaj added.

Diego Martin East MP Colm Imbert, speaking in Parliament on October 6 2000, said, “We are demanding that this Government amend this legislation to include the persons that we have requested, as I said, senators, judges, magistrates. We are demanding that all chairmen of State enterprises are included.” When asked by MP Mervyn Assam if judges should be included, Imbert replied, “Why not? What is the problem? What is so sacrosanct about that? In my opinion it will create greater respect for that system. Why should anybody be sacrosanct? Why should we have any sacred cows in this society?” Maharaj said the UNC included judges and magistrates in the Bill so the Government could get the special majority to pass the 2000 Act. The Bill was passed and assented to by the President on October 27, 2000. On February 7, 2001, former CJ de la Bastide issued a statement to the media in which he said no one consulted with him before the 2000 Act was passed. The judges, according to de la Bastide, sought legal advice from a Senior Counsel as to the constitutionality of the amendments to the Act which state that judges fall within the net of those accountable.