Moves to halt judges’ swearing in

Up to late last night, attorneys for former UNC Senator Devant Maharaj, President Carmona, the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) and the Law Association were presenting their arguments before High Court judge Frank Seepersad, on an emergency injunction which was being sought by Maharaj to restrain Carmona from making the appointments today at President’s House.

Justice Seepersad, presiding in Tobago, was expected to deliver his ruling during the pre-dawn hours today. The judge was presiding in the Tobago High Court and the hearing was done via video conferencing with lawyers presenting their arguments at the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain.

The imbroglio in the Judiciary over recent judicial appointments took a new turn yesterday when Maharaj’s lawyers approached the high court with the emergency injunction which also sought to prohibit the JLSC from giving any advice on appointments of new judicial officers.

Former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, who leads a team of attorneys for Maharaj, which include Gerald Ramdeen, Jayanti Lutchmedial and Douglas Bayley, yesterday wrote to the President asking him to hold his hand on making today’s appointments.

The attorneys gave Carmona up to 2 pm to defer today’s swearing in. Having not received a response, they filed the emergency application late yesterday.

Just before midday yesterday, the Office of the President issued a statement indicating Carmona was to swear in two new Puisne judges in accordance with advice of the JLSC by virtue of Section 104(1) of the Constitution.

Sources identified the new judges as former deputy DPP Kathy Ann Waterman-Latchoo and former Solicitor General of the Cayman Islands, Jacqueline Wilson, who is a Trinidadian.

Waterman-Latchoo was most recently a judge in St Vincent and the Grenadines. Over the last two months there has been disquiet over the recent appointments of former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar and senior magistrate Avason Quinlan-Williams.

Both were appointed on April 12, but two weeks later, Ayers-Caesar resigned after it was revealed she left 53 cases unresolved before taking up her judgeship.

Ayers-Caesar has not publicly spoken on the issue but her attorney Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, said, “Something is expected to take place soon.” He did not elaborate.

PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION In their letter to Carmona, Maharaj’s attorneys made it clear their objections were not criticisms on the merit or suitability of the proposed judges but is rooted in the absolute need to protect the Constitution from being violated and the need to uphold the rule of law, so judicial appointments can be made by a process that is sanctioned and supported by the Constitution.

They suggested the appointments be deferred until after the hearing and determination of Maharaj’s lawsuit which is listed to be heard on June 14 in the San Fernando High Court. The lawyers also advised that while the process of the appointment of two new judges would have started sometime ago, they said it would have been done at a time when the JLSC was improperly constituted.

“As you are aware the JLSC has conceded that was improperly constituted in that it comprised four members (including two retired judges) when the Constitution imposes a minimum requirement of at least five members,” the letter to Carmona advised.

“It is therefore obvious the process undertaken by the JLSC that would have led to advice to His Excellency or the appointment of these judges would have occurred during the tenure of an improperly and unconstitutional JLSC with four members as opposed to the required minimum of five members that was acting outside the framework of the Constitution as supreme law,” the letter said.

“Respect for the rule of law and the Constitution therefore demands that His Excellency defer these proposed judicial appointments until the Supreme Court pronounces on the validity of the action and conduct of the JLSC.

“If it is found that the JLSC was illegally and improperly constituted then the appointments of these judges can be seen as an unfortunate and unacceptable attempt to ‘steal a march’ on the Constitution and the Court using Section 36 of the Interpretation Act as a shield for the illegal conduct of the JLSC,” the letter further advised.

CASE AGAINST JLSC Maharaj in his substantive lawsuit is challenging the constitutionality and legality of the JLSC and the presence of two retired judges - Roger Hamel-Smith and Humphrey Stollmeyer - as members.

In particular, he contends that the Stollmeyer cannot be lawfully serve as a member since section 110(3)(b) targeted members of the legal profession who were legal practitioners and one who is still a practitioner and not retired judges.

According to Maharaj’s claim the Constitution does not permit more than one retired judge on the JLSC. The other members of the JLSC include Chief Justice Ivor Archie - as chairman - head of the Public Service Commission Maureen Manchouk and Senior Counsel Ernest Koylass, who was appointed one day after Maharaj’s lawyers issued a pre action protocol letter questioning the legality of Hamel-Smith’s and Stollmeyer’s appointments as members.

Less than a week ago, the Law Association passed a motion of no confidence against Chief Justice Archie, calling on him to step down from his position. Similar motions were passed against the other members of the JLSC, excluding Koylass, arising out of the developments involving Ayers-Caesar and her selection as a High Court judge.