Stand-off at the Hall of Justice

THERE is never a dull moment in the Judiciary.  There is always something newsworthy, whether there is a controversy over a particular case, or tension between the major players in the profession. Years ago, there was a duel taking place between the then Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and the former Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide. Late last year, another controversy erupted when it was alleged that Chief Justice Sat Sharma tried to influence the Director of Public Prosecutions not to lay murder charges against Professor Dr Vijay Naraynsingh. Prime Minister Patrick Manning then moved to impeach Sharma by asking for a Presidential tribunal to investigate the Chief Justice’s conduct. But Sharma went to court and stopped the tribunal pending the hearing of his judicial review case.

Now comes the news that Sharma and Anthony Gafoor, chairman of the Tax Appeal Board, are at loggerheads over accommodation at the Hall of Justice. In this latest battle, Attorney General John Jeremie fully supports Sharma. Sharma wants the Board to move out of the Hall of Justice, but Gafoor is resisting until proper accommodation is provided. The fallout from this impasse is Cabinet’s decision to blank Gafoor and two others from attending a conference in Seattle, Washington DC earlier this month. Annoyed at the Cabinet’s decision, Gafoor wrote to President George Maxwell Richards to complain about the treatment meted out to him. He later visited the President at President’s House to discuss the matter. The drama unfolded on June 6 this year when Sharma wrote to Gafoor informing him the Judiciary needed the space which the Board occupies on the second floor of the Hall of Justice. He said with the new rules coming in place on September 16, more judges will be appointed, and therefore more space will be needed to provide the judges with chambers.

Sharma gave Gafoor until September 1 to move out. Gafoor replied by letter on June 7, saying no one informed him that new rules were being implemented. He pointed out that the Board had been seeking accommodation for the last five years. In 2002, he said a building was identified on Pembroke Street near the Hall of Justice, but this did not materialise. Gafoor told the Chief Justice that the Board had been occupying the Hall of Justice for the past 26 years, and therefore the Board was not a ‘tenant’ of the Judiciary. “This means our occupation of the existing accommodation has never been at the behest or through the grace of the Judiciary,” Gafoor added. AG Jeremie got into the act when he wrote a letter dated June 23 to Gafoor. He said he agreed with the Chief Justice that the Judiciary needs the space at the Hall of Justice. “In these circumstances, I am to strongly urge you to find alternative accommodation by the date indicated by the Honourable Chief Justice.”

Jeremie found that Gafoor’s choice of 123-126 St Vincent Street (the LJ Williams building) ‘appears to be entirely unsupported by facts.” He suggested that Gafoor meet with his Permanent Secretary in an attempt to identify suitable accommodation. Gafoor replied right away. He pointed out to the AG that the Board has been occupying the space ever since the Hall of Justice was built. “I am sure you will appreciate that it is not a simple exercise to merely collect our belongings and move to new premises (which have not even been located let alone modified for the purpose of a Superior Court of Record).” Gafoor also pointed out that Cabinet’s note recommended that the Board be permitted to remain in occupation at the Hall of Justice “pending the securing of suitable, alternative accommodation.” On July 28, Jeremie wrote to Gafoor, saying “I am somewhat disturbed that you have not to date been able to attend any meetings with the Permanent Secretary yourself to finalise arrangements in respect of your relocation. You would appreciate that the Government will not make any final arrangements without your personal involvement.”

The Permanent Secretary, Cheryl Blackman, penned a letter dated July 29 to Gafoor, in which she said she was instructed by the Attorney General to meet with the Board Chairman to obtain “clear-cut precise instructions.” Gafoor replied to Jeremie by letter dated August 5 in which he pointed out that the Registrar, and not himself, should deal with matters of relocation. Then came the letter which upset Gafoor. By letter dated August 25, PS Blackman informed him that Cabinet did not agree that three officials of the Board should represent Trinidad and Tobago at the Ninth Court Technology Conference in Seattle, Washington, from September 13 to 15. These officials were Gafoor, Registrar Andrew Dalip, and Keith Joseph, Information Technology manager.

Blackman said Cabinet agreed to “instead direct the Tax Appeal Board to concentrate all its efforts to find alternative accommodation to house its offices bearing in mind, the Chief Justice’s directive that the Board vacate the space it currently occupies in the Hall of Justice by September 1, 2005.” Gafoor chose to go one step further. He penned a letter dated August 26 to President Richards. Gafoor complained of the decision of Cabinet to blank his trip to Washington. He pointed out that Cabinet on July 14, had agreed that they should make the trip. He said his Board proceeded to make arrangements with sponsors of the conference as well as travel and accommodation arrangements. Gafoor told the President that Cabinet agreed to the trip, but the PS in her letter said “Cabinet did not agree.” The Board chairman also made reference to the Chief Justice’s eviction notice and the problems being experienced in finding alternative accommodation.

In his letter to the President, Gafoor wrote about another site on Frederick Street which is expected to become available. He pleaded with the President to ensure their attendance at the conference. According to Gafoor, failure to attend the conference could give rise to personal embarrassment for the officials of the Tax Appeal Court and himself and most likely the Government in relation to the foreign sponsors. In another letter dated August 30, this time to the Chief Justice, Gafoor felt that the Board was being penalised in relation to conference because of the issue relating to relocation. “I had attempted to seek an urgent meeting with you last week to discuss this matter but my secretary was this week requested to provide the reasons for the meeting. Given the sensitive nature of the above matters, prudence dictated that we should refrain from doing so, hence the reason the request for the meeting was withdrawn.

“I wish to assure you that we have done all within our power to comply with your directive, but I wish to reiterate that there is precious little that we can do at this stage. I also feel strongly that, as a Superior Court of Record, we have not been treated with the respect by the authorities that this court deserves and I believe has earned over the almost four decades of its existence.” In that same letter, Gafoor declined invitations sent by the Chief Justice for the ceremonial opening of the law term on September 16, and the cocktail reception at Crowne Plaza on Friday evening. Gafoor then met with President Richards on September 1 where the issues were raised. When he addressed members of the legal profession during the first sitting of the Board for the new term on September 19, Gafoor spoke of the directive of the Chief Justice to evict them from the Hall of Justice.

Contacted on Friday, AG Jeremie said, “it would be irresponsible in the extreme for the State to fund travel for the Board at a time when the Board should be actively hunting for alternative accommodation.” As of today, no one knows when the Tax Appeal Board will leave the Hall of Justice. Where the Board will go, is anyone’s guess.