Court stops CJ probe

In a relatively short court hearing yesterday, Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma was successful in stopping a tribunal on the eve of its appointment by the President to investigate allegations of misconduct against him, Sharma. The tribunal was reportedly comprised of  a former Chief Justice of India, a Law Lord and a judge from TT or the Caribbean, Newsday learnt. The allegations of misconduct were made recently by Prime Minister Patrick Manning who recommended to President George Maxwell Richards that a tribunal be appointed to determine the CJ’s culpability, if any. The court yesterday also granted the CJ leave  for judicial review of the decision of Manning with regards to the tribunal.

The CJ will have to file his substantive motion for review today. The PM will have to respond to all the CJ’s affidavits on or before April 27, 2005, and all parties will return to court the following day — April 28. Manning through his attorneys,  Douglas Mendes SC, Michael Quamina and Stuart Young, made it clear that the PM was not objecting to the court granting the CJ leave, but was objecting to the injunction. Mendes  offered an alternative to the injunction. He also made it clear that Manning was not pursuing the question of asking the President to suspend the CJ at this time. Mendes explained that the PM no longer has any interest in the matter as such — he has done his part by making representation to the President. The matter is now with the President.

While both sides acknowledged that the court could not tell the President what to do, Mendes suggested that the President be allowed to appoint the tribunal which would be free  to carry out preliminary preparations while the motion is being heard. He reasoned that,  if in the event the CJ’s motion fails, the  tribunal would be able to move swiftly to hear the matter. But the CJ’s team of attorneys yesterday, led by Russell Martineau SC, Frank Solomon SC and including Deborah Peake, Devish Maharaj and Rajiv Persad instructed by Dennis Gurley, contended that while the court could not stop the President from appointing a tribunal, if the President  was  aware of the court’s view on the matter he would comply willingly and not appoint the tribunal. They accepted that they could not stop the President from appointing the  tribunal, but noted that an order of the court could stop the tribunal, if appointed, from conducting any  inquiry into  complaints by the PM against the CJ.

Mendes’ alternative option was that the President be given an opportunity to have a representative in court so that his view would be known, but Solomon countered that such a move would be a clear interference by the President into the judicial process of the court. Solomon added  that  the President must be left out,  since he is out of the reaches of the court. Mendes’ point was that since the court could not tell the President what to do, it should allow him to appoint the tribunal so that it could do its preliminary  work and save much time in a matter which the court described  as of great public interest. Solomon asserted that to even appoint the tribunal would bring about further prejudices against the CJ.

Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer, who heard submissions on the matter in the Port-of-Spain First Civil Court, said that if he permits the tribunal to be appointed and the CJ’s motion is successful,  then it would be appointed in vain,  and if the tribunal could not perform whatever preliminary procedure  and the motion fails,  then that would be a waste of time. Therefore, it would be better  if the tribunal is not appointed. Manning conducted an investigation into the conduct of the CJ following certain statements the CJ allegedly made during conversations at meetings with the Attorney General John Jeremie, Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson and Justice Mark Mohammed ( a former DPP), with regards to a murder charge laid against Dr Vijay Narynsingh. 

Narynsingh, his wife Seromanie and businessman Elton Ramasir, were jointly charged with the murder of Narynsingh’s second wife Chandra. The doctor has since been freed by the court, while the others have been committed to stand trial at the High Court. Manning, after obtaining the opinions of  legal counsel, advised the President to appoint a tribunal to investigate the allegations of misconduct by the CJ and remove him from office.   At the hearing yesterday, the CJ’s team suggested a cautiously worded order so that it does not imply that the court is attempting to tell the President what to do.  The proposed order which was adopted by the court reads: “That all actions or proceedings consequential upon the implementation of the said decision and representation be stayed until after the hearing and determination of the motion or further order.”