Sharma denies story

Chief Justice Sat Sharma categorically denied to Prime Minister Patrick Manning that he had ever sought the assistance of either Attorney General John Jeremie or DPP Geoffrey Henderson in aborting the prosecution of Dr Vijay Naraynsingh and others. This is in sharp contrast to  the versions given by Henderson and Jeremie. In his February 8 letter of response to the complaints filed by the AG and the DPP, Sharma said it was the DPP who because of his own concern about the case, sought his advice time and time again on how to proceed. Henderson claimed that he was “worried” that both he and his office could be exposed to ridicule and charges of malicious prosecution. 

On Jeremie’s behaviour in this matter, Sharma expressed shock saying that despite  several meetings with the AG subsequent to his (Jeremie’s) January 5 statement to the Prime Minister, he (the AG) never told him that he was a complainant in the issue. In fact Jeremie expressed the view that the DPP “could not be trusted and relied upon,” Sharma said.  The AG had also reportedly told him that the DPP acted without reference to anyone describing Henderson as “autocratic and non-cooperative.” “On one occasion... he said to me ‘Chief, your problem finish. Mine now start. I have to contend with this man (meaning the DPP),’” Sharma further stated.

The AG, according to Sharma, also told him that he couldn’t understand why Prime Minister Patrick Manning was “persisting in pursuing this matter.” The CJ added that the AG told him that members of the Cabinet and another “prominent PNM official, whose name he (the AG) mentioned” expressed the view that Naraynsingh was a “religious man” who was “big” in the Hindu community and therefore hoped that there was sufficient evidence to have charged him. The AG also reportedly told Sharma that “a lot of people were annoyed because the matter would be seen as racial.” The CJ  further stated that the AG informed him that when the DPP asked him (the AG) for Senior Counsel to prosecute the case, his reply was that he (Henderson) should go and do the prosecution himself “and defend the (mess) you did!”

Sharma stated that it was clear to him that the AG was annoyed with the DPP. He reiterated that at no time did he ask the AG to take steps to pre-empt or stop the prosecution since both he and the AG knew that the Attorney General did not have such power under the Constitution. (According to the Constitution, only the DPP has that power, which is expressly stated in Section 90 (3): “The DPP shall have power in any case in which he considers it proper so to do to discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other person or authority”). In an unusual twist to the whole drama, the tearoom brawl found itself in the Sharma reply. Sharma admitted that he told the DPP that there was a perception in the Indian community that the failure to charge Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley on the complaint of Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma coupled with the laying of the charge against Naraynsingh was in the circumstances racial. “He told me the Prime Minister and some members of the Executive were annoyed with him that Rowley was not charged as the Prime Minister wanted to get rid of him (Rowley),” Sharma recounted.

Sharma said the DPP repeatedly told him that he was very worried about the repercussions of the case, which he (Henderson) said he had “agonised over” and had “sleepless nights” thinking about.  Sharma said the DPP told him that his father was a UWI professor and the UWI community was pillorying and criticising him. Henderson also told Sharma and that he (Henderson) went to Christmas functions where people were expressing “strongly” their feelings on the issue “in much the same tone as the letters in the press.” Sharma said he told Henderson he had had similar experiences and he had cause to explain to such persons that people could be charged on the basis of the evidence of convicted individuals. “But people couldn’t understand this,” he said he told Henderson then. Sharma said twice he told Henderson during their many meetings on the issue  to  “cover your back” and suggested that he get the advice of eminent British QC Timothy Cassel “to support what he had done.”

On the racial angle, Sharma conceded that he did say to the Attorney General that there were people employed in the DPP’s office who were perceived to be racists. “But I was cautious to say that this was what I was told by persons who had worked and still worked in the DPP. I did not say that that was my view,” he said. On the meeting with former DPP, Mark Mohammed,  Sharma said whereas the DPP’s report stated that Mohammed’s recall of the letter — written by Krishnadath Neebar alleging a conspiracy to falsely implicate Naraynsingh in his former wife’s murder — was “hazy,” Sharma in his February 8 response said Mohammed confirmed the letter’s existence and the DPP (Henderson) admitted that he (too) was aware of the letter. Sharma also stated that Mohammed told him that Henderson was “extremely worried” about the State’s case and wanted to know what Mohammed would have done (had he still been DPP).

In his report, Sharma was vague on who called most of the meetings between himself and Henderson. However he did say  the Sunday December 12  meeting was set up at Henderson’s request. He added that at that meeting Henderson told him that he was “seriously considering” not pursuing and dropping the charges against Naraynsingh but he was afraid of being criticised as weak and incompetent. “I told him that would be a matter for him and if he decided on such a course, he would have to give a public explanation,”  Sharma said. He further stated that at the end of that meeting, Henderson told him, “Chief, I was never here.”

Sharma noted that the DPP in the past had discussed other cases with him and cited  the case of the Barbadian fishermen, which was withdrawn without his consent; the cases involving Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday, Carlos John, and Ishwar Galbaransingh before the charges were made. Sharma concluded his response by saying that it was difficult to understand why Henderson continued to see him  and seek his advice if he had done something which Henderson considered improper. Sharma’s report made no mention of the report that he showed the AG the surgical scar and said that Narayansingh had saved his life and could not have done anything wrong. Sharma also made no mention of the DPP’s charge that Sharma had indicated his (Henderson’s) suitability to the job.