The trouble with being attorney general

But whether or not Jeremie demits office, his tenure demonstrates the fact that the job of Attorney General is not an easy one.

One of the most important figures under our Constitution, the post of Attorney General (AG) has, for decades, and through successive administrations, been one in which the office-holder faces unique troubles and grave responsibilities. From the days of Karl Hudson-Phillips to Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, this is not a job for the light-hearted.

This month, Jeremie, the titular head of the Bar, was faced with a motion of no confidence passed by the Law Association against him.

On July 1 lawyers voted 102 to 82 to “declare absolutely no confidence” in the AG in the wake of reports that in 2006 he attempted to push the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to charge Opposition politicians.

Lawyers argued that it was improper for an AG to try to push a DPP to lay charges. This, they said, violated the DPP’s constitutional independence and polluted the theoretically apolitical chain of law enforcement.

Others argued that Jeremie, charged under the Constitution with accounting for the administration of justice in the country, was right to call a sitting DPP to account. Jeremie was right, they argued, for questioning the end result of behind the scenes criminal investigations which can sometimes cost taxpayers millions.

But in fact the trouble over the role of the AG was nothing new. As Karl Hudson-Phillips QC, noted, the search for a clear boundary between the office of the AG and the office of the DPP is bound to be a futile one.

In an article published in the Sunday Newsday on June 28, Hudson-Phillips noted that the issue was “by no means new”. Attorney General between 1969 and 1973, he traced the issue to the fact that at one stage after Independence, the AG performed the functions of the DPP. And now, while both offices are separate, it is clear that “there can be areas of apparent overlap”.

Hudson-Phillips himself faced challenges during his tenure which related to the activities of the Government of the day.

For instance, he had to resist an attempt by former Prime Minister Eric Williams to direct that counsel from the private bar be retained to prosecute Abdul Malik. He was also forced to withdraw a prosecution against a calypsonian for singing a racially offensive calypso because the Prime Minister commented on the merits of the case before it was concluded. This month, the motion against Jeremie was itself subject to criticism from members of the Government, who pointed to the fact that 200 out of 1500 lawyers attended the meeting and who argued that some of the lawyers had political ties.

But there was nonetheless a perception among some that what really lay behind the motion was not only the reports of Jeremie’s push to have charges initiated. Some noted that there was widespread concern over Jeremie’s role in the attempts to have Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma removed from office.

Jeremie allegedly intervened in a suspect land deal involving Sharma’s main accuser but failed to turn up at the Mustill Inquiry to be cross-examined on the issue in 2007. After the November 2007 polls, Jeremie did not return to office and was posted as High Commissioner to London. He was thought to be in the political wilderness when he returned to replace his predecessor Bridgid Annisette-George in May.

Annisette-George would have had a lesson or two to teach Jeremie. She met with him after she abruptly left office in May.

To this day, sources close to Annisette-George maintain that she was virtually forced out in the wake of repeated behind the scenes sparring with members of Cabinet.

Annisette-George was concerned that attempts were being made to “dirty her bath water” in order to force her out. This, after she disagreed on several issues with her Cabinet colleagues. Those issues included the handling of the Uff Commission of Inquiry and the hiring of forensic investigator Bob Lindquist.

But if things have been tough for Annisette-George, Jeremie and Hudson-Phillips, then they were worse for Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj.

Maharaj was Attorney General under the UNC administration between 1996 and 2001. He quickly grew a reputation for the vast legislative agendas during his tenure.

But Maharaj was fired by former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday in October 2001, reportedly because he had raised objections over the failure of the UNC administration to investigate allegations of corruption levied against Cabinet ministers.

Panday later branded Maharaj a “nemakaram” after Maharaj formed the “Team Unity” trio, effectively causing the Government to collapse. To date, Maharaj is still nursing the effects of this fallout with his leader.

Other Attorneys General have had to contend with tough times. Russell Martineau handed in his resignation to then Prime Minister George Chambers after the Law Association passed a motion of no confidence against him in 1982. Martineau had come under hot water for criticising a judgement of a sitting Supreme Court Judge.Former Attorney General Keith Sobion faced criticism for the role he played in facilitating the execution of murder convict Glen Ashby. Ashby had had an appeal pending before the Court of Appeal, but Sobion gave the go ahead for his execution. It was felt by some that he did this to placate politicians calling for the implementation of capital punishment.

Kamla Persad-Bissessar made history by being appointed the first woman Attorney General in 1995 under the UNC.

But she had the post pulled out from under her feet by Panday, who gave it to Maharaj in 1996. The second woman AG, Glenda Morean-Phillip, also faced behind the scenes criticism during her brief tenure.

All of them, though, will have lessons to teach whoever sits in the Office of the Attorney General at Cabildo Chambers, St Vincent Street, this week.