AG willing to pay CJ fees, but ...

ATTORNEY GENERAL John Jeremie is prepared to release money for Chief Justice Sat Sharma to mount his legal challenge against the decision to establish a tribunal to investigate whether he should be removed from office. But there is just one problem. CJ Sharma must give good reasons why he should be given money to pay his battery of lawyers when this has never been done before. This was made clear by Jeremie in a letter dated April 12 to Dennis Gurley, instructing attorney for the Chief Justice. Gurley, by letter dated April 4, wrote to the Attorney General asking for the State to be responsible for the reasonable legal fees and disbursements incurred by the Chief Justice and by the legal team in connection with the challenge mounted by Sharma.

In his letter, Gurley said allegations against his client were first officially communicated to Sharma at a meeting with Prime Minister Patrick Manning on January 25, and were followed by a letter dated January 26 from the Prime Minister. “As a result of that communication, the Chief Justice sought and obtained legal advice and was assisted in the exchange of communication that followed culminating with a letter of April 1, 2005, from the Prime Minister indicating that he had represented to His Excellency the President that the question of removing the Chief Justice from office under section 137 of the Constitution ought to be investigated.”

Gurley continued, “Acting in accordance with the instructions of the Chief Justice, we have retained and briefed three senior counsel and two junior counsel to advise and appear on behalf at the hearing of any court or tribunal proceedings that may arise out of or that are incidental to the allegations and the representation of the Honourable Prime Minister.” In response, AG Jeremie said he has not been able to find any case where the State provided the type of assistance which the Chief Justice requested in relation to the holder of a public office facing what in substance is a disciplinary investigation. According to Jeremie, “As far as I have been able to discern, public officials facing disciplinary charges meet their own legal expenses both in relation to the disciplinary proceedings themselves as well as in relation to any satellite High Court proceedings they might think advisable to launch.”

Jeremie said when impeachment proceedings got underway against the late Justice Richard Crane in 1990, the High Court judge retained a very large and high profile legal team. The AG said it appeared that Crane bore all his legal costs. It was not until he won his battle in the Privy Council in 1994, that an order was made for the State to pay Crane costs for his entire legal battle. Jeremie said his main concern was that should he agree to the CJ’s request, he would be hard pressed to deny similar requests from members of the Supreme Court, the Magistracy, the Industrial Court, the Tax Appeal Board, or from the hundreds of public officers facing disciplinary charges. Jeremie asked for submissions to be forwarded on the matter before a final decision is made. As a witness in the matter, he asked that further matters be raised with Solicitor General Lynette Stephenson in the future.