Marcia still a judge

“I want the JLSC to reconsider, as far as I am concerned, she is still a judge. I kept on referring to her as Justice Marcia Ayers-Caesar, as far as I am concerned, Justice Marcia Ayers-Caesar is a judge of the High Court and as far as I am concerned any such letter of resignation doesn’t have any legal effect in the circumstances,” Maharaj, a senior counsel, said yesterday.

Addressing a media conference at his Irving Street, San Fernando law offices yesterday, Maharaj disclosed that while he had discussions with Ayers-Caesar about the issue, he was not speaking as her attorney.

He however dissected the arguments put forward by the JLSC regarding her resignation, saying the removal of a judge involved the appointment of a tribunal by the President.

On April 27, 15 days after her appointment as judge, Ayers-Caesar resigned amid growing concern over unfinished cases she may have left behind in the magistracy, as the Chief Magistrate, and one day after prisoners almost rioted in the Eighth Magistrates Court in Port-of-Spain where she presided for the last seven years.

Ayers-Caesar’s resignation was announced in a statement issued by the Judiciary’s Court Protocol and Information Department.

Maharaj yesterday questioned the validity of the resignation letter suggesting Ayers-Caesar was pressured to step down.

“I saw on the newspapers, it was a headline, a letter of resignation was signed and there was some story of the circumstances it was signed and based on the knowledge of what I have of some of the circumstances, I am of the view that serious questions arise as to whether that letter of resignation can be effective in law,” he said.

“And if there has to be a letter of resignation, it has to be a letter of resignation given in circumstances which can withstand scrutiny by any reasonable courts,” he said, adding that similar cases had occurred where persons had signed deeds or contracts and the courts had been asked to determine whether they had been signed under duress or undue influence.

Maharaj said the JLSC possessed the capability to inquire about her workload as a magistrate before appointing her as a judge and “having made that appointment, the JLSC cannot use any other power to remove that judge.” “I do not see any legal barrier put forward by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission to prevent Madam Justice Marcia Ayers-Caesar from functioning as a judge,” he said, adding, “the duty is on the JLSC and I am confident that ultimately if this matter is further gone into, that this issue of not having outstanding judgements would not be an important issue.” He said the court administration department would have been able to provide reports to the Chief Justice for him to access the workload of judges and magistrates and to determine whether there were excessive delays in the magistracy or the Judiciary.

“I am of the view that the JLSC would have had access to all of the data regarding the outstanding work of the Chief Magistrate before the JLSC appointed the Chief Magistrate as a judge,” he said.

Asked whether she could be reinstated, Maharaj said, “It is not a question to be reinstated, she doesn’t have to be reinstated, she has to continue her functions as a judge.” “The JLSC has no power to say she is no longer a judge, the judge can only be removed from office if there is a genuine letter of resignation, or secondly a committee, a tribunal appointed by the President, there is a special procedure under section 137 and then that has to be a recommendation to the Privy Council and the Privy Council determines that the Judge should be removed from office,” he said.

“A judge cannot be removed from office easily,” he said.

“If the JLSC does not take steps to facilitate to continue her function as a judge, it would be open to the judge, as many judges have done, to challenge that decision and to seek compensation from the State,” Maharaj said, and cited the matter involving the late justice Richard Crane and then chief justice Clinton Bernard.

Asked whether the JLSC and Chief Justice should resign, he said, “From what I see, from what has happened so far, is not every error made by a judge or made by an administrative body merits or attracts resignation or removal from office.” “From what I have seen so far, I do not think there is any basis to ask the Chief Justice to resign, I do not agree with some of my colleagues that this matter at this stage calls for any resignation of the Chief Justice,” he added.

“What I do think however is that the Chief Justice as chairman of the JLSC has to get this matter reconsidered by the JLSC and to take steps to have reforms in the appointment process so that things like these may not happen again.” And whereas Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi has said the Government cannot get involved, Maharaj said if he were still in office he would have written the Chief Justice. “I would have told the Chief Justice that you should look at this again and reconsider it,” he said.

Maharaj said he was willing to challenge the JLSC’s decision against allowing Ayers-Caesar to continue as a judge.

“If for some reason, the judge has to challenge it and I am asked to challenge it, I will undertake that responsibility and if I have to take that responsibility, I would be prepared, if the judge decides to challenge it, I would be prepared to go to the highest level to prove that the rights of the judge have been violated.” On May 5, 11 senior counsels in a joint statement called on the JLSC to provide information about the states of Ayers-Caesar’s unfinished cases in the magistrates’ court. Days later, the JLSC disclosed Ayers-Caesar had dismissed 16 cases in one day in the Couva court, after accepting her appointment to the High Court.

In a statement, the JLSC said they had been misled by her.

Also last week, former attorney general Anand Ramlogan initiated legal action on the constitutionality of the composition of the JLSC, specifically the inclusion of two retired judges.

Last Friday, Ramlogan asked that the JLSC not make any new appointments until the issue is determined by the court.