CJ takes action against PM — Tells of ‘conflict and discord’

In his application, Sharma is claiming that since his appointment the relationship between him and the PM has been "characterised by conflict and discord."

The application filed by attorney Dennis Gurley of the law firm JD Sellier and Company, is asking the court for a declaration that the PM’s call on April 1, 2005, for the President to appoint a tribunal to probe the CJ’s conduct, was illegal and made in breach of the rules of natural justice. The PM’s actions are also being challenged as disproportionate, null and void and of no effect.

Manning’s attempt to have the CJ removed from office stems from allegations of misconduct on the part of the CJ in relation to a murder trial in which prominent medical practitioner Dr Vijay Naraynsingh, his wife Seroomanie and South businessman Elton Ramasir, were jointly charged with the murder of Dr Naraynsingh’s second wife, Chandra. Dr Naraynsingh has since been freed by the court of the charge. The other two were committed to stand trial at the Assizes. The CJ is alleged to have tried to stop the Naraynsingh prosecution. CJ Sat Sharma is also challenging other decisions taken by Manning in relation to this matter.

According to documents filed yesterday in the Registry of the Port-of-Spain High Court, the complaint against the CJ was not initiated by either the Attorney General (AG) or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), but on the initiative and direction of the PM.

The CJ also contends that all the allegations which the PM is relying on to support the charge of misbehaviour occurred during the early days of December 2004, and that neither the AG nor the DPP made any complaint, objection or negative response of any kind to anyone, and in particular to the CJ or to the PM, until the occurrence of other events which were detailed in the filed documents.

The CJ is further asking the court for a declaration that Manning’s actions were unreasonable, irregular and/or an improper exercise of the PM’s power or discretion, made in breach of the CJ’s fundamental rights to protection of the law and freedom of thought and expression.

Another declaration being sought is that the decision of the PM to require the AG and the DPP to submit statements to him concerning private and confidential conversations and meetings between him, the AG and the DPP, was an unreasonable, irregular and improper exercise of the PM’s power. Further, the CJ complains that Manning’s decision to have the AG investigate a matter in which the AG him was a protagonist, who in due course was formally named as a complainant, is illegal and a breach of the rules of natural justice, and null and void.

The documents also claim that the failure or refusal and/or omission of the PM at any or all material times to disclose to the CJ sufficiently, the allegations which he, the PM, considered or understood to have been made against the CJ, are contrary to the rules of natural justice. In addition, the CJ is saying that the PM’s decision to ask Justice Mark Mohammed for additional and better particulars about a meeting between the CJ and others was in excess of the PM’s jurisdiction, illegal and procedurally improper. The CJ is, thus, asking for legal costs and damages.