Hamel-Smith: PM must deal with CJ

In an affidavit filed in the Port-of-Spain High Court Registry yesterday, Hamel-Smith said he explained to Attorney General John Jeremie that it was not possible for the Judiciary to deal with the complaint against the CJ.

Such a complaint, he added, had to be dealt with in accordance with Section 137 of the Constitution. He said if the complaint had been in relation to a judge, the Judicial and Legal Services Commission could deal with it.

Hamel-Smith’s affidavit was the fourth to be filed in the last five days in response to one filed by Sharma in his judicial review application.

Hamel-Smith said that on January 4, while he was acting as Chief Justice, he attended a meeting with Jeremie and Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson at the AG’s Chambers. He said the DPP told him he had been summoned to a meeting by Sharma concerning the Naraynsingh case. The DPP said he was questioned by Sharma on his decision to charge Dr Naraynsingh.

"The DPP spoke of other meetings with the Chief Justice but I stopped him short. I was concerned that if what the DPP was telling me was true, then there may have been an attempt by the Chief Justice to influence a criminal prosecution and that he (the DPP) might be incriminating himself.

"I considered the matter to be a serious one as it appeared to raise issues of improper conduct. Accordingly, I told the DPP that I did not want to hear anymore as he might be incriminating himself in something that appeared highly improper. I told the DPP that he should seek legal advice on the matter before doing anything further."

Hamel-Smith said the Attorney General spoke of meetings with the Chief Justice in which the Chief Justice was eliciting his assistance in stopping the prosecution of Dr Naraynsingh "or words to that effect."

Hamel-Smith said before the meeting ended, he advised the Attorney General and the DPP that they should put what happened in writing as an aide-memoire in case they were called upon in the future to give their versions of the events.

The Appeal Court judge said he went to Sharma’s home on January 9 and told him that it was being alleged that he was attempting to interfere in the Dr Naraynsingh prosecution. "He told me that that was not true," Hamel-Smith added.

On April 12, Sharma filed for judicial review of the decision of the Prime Minister to represent to the President that a tribunal be appointed to investigate whether he should be removed from office. Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer has fixed July 18 for the start of the substantive motion brought by the Chief Justice. The case will continue day-to-day until it is completed, the judge added.