Sharma under scrutiny

THERE HAD been weeks of speculation and dramatic behind-the-scenes developments involving top public officials before the first report appeared in the media that Chief Justice Sat Sharma was facing disciplinary action arising out of allegations of interference in matters before the courts. That report, carried exclusively by Newsday on February 1, was a brief three-paragraph story about a top official facing possible charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and misbehaviour.

That same day, Senate Opposition Leader Wade Mark told a sitting of the Upper House that the PNM Govern-ment had a plan to remove the CJ from office. “We understand that representation has already been made to the President of Trini-dad and Tobago, Professor George Maxwell Richards,” Mark said. In response, Attorney General John Jeremie said the Government could not remove a Chief Justice from office and described Mark’s claims as “ignorance of the highest order and highly inflammatory language.” Mark, who is also Chairman of the United National Con-gress (UNC), followed up with a February 3 press conference at the Office of the Leader of the Opposition during which he claimed Jeremie and Director of Public Prose-cutions Geoffrey Henderson knew of a plan to remove Sharma from office.

On Carnival Sunday (Febru-ary 6), in another exclusive, the Sunday Newsday broke the news that Prime Minister Patrick Manning had written to the CJ informing him of complaints made against him by the AG and the DPP. The PM gave Sharma time to respond to allegations. It was also revealed for the first time that the controversy had been brewing since last year when some judges reportedly complained about the CJ. At that time, there had been no public comments from officials involved in the matter, apart from the AG’s response to Senator Wade Mark’s statement in the Upper House.
Sharma reportedly told the PM he had done nothing wrong with regard to his performance as head of the Judiciary and disputed the allegations made against him by the AG and the DPP.

He further claimed that a “calculated attempt” was being made to remove him from office. The rapidly unfolding events drew comments from two religious groups. On February 11, Secretary General of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha (SDMS) expres-sed concern that the reported attempts to remove the CJ from office could lead to violence in the society. Maharaj met with President Richards to deliver a letter highlighting the Maha Sabha’s concerns and urging him to “preserve and defend the Con-stitution and the law and prevent this abuse.” According to Maharaj, the Maha Sabha was concerned that “this country is seething on the brink of racial violence” and that the brewing CJ controversy could be “the spark that ignites the flame.”

A few days later, the Catholic Commission for Social Justice (CSJ) jumped into the fray when its Chairman Leela Ramdeen, an attorney-at-law, expressed concern that the alleged plot to remove the CJ could have serious repercussions in the Judiciary and the nation as a whole. Roman Catholic (RC) Arch-bishop Edward Gilbert, who was out of the country at the time that the CSJ statement was issued, on his return promptly issued an apology for the CSJ statement. He said that had he been here, he would not have approved it. The RC Archbishop met with PM Manning on February 18 to personally apologise to him for the statement.

He also publicly criticised the CSJ for releasing it. Ramdeen offered her resignation as CSJ Chairman but Archbishop Gilbert refused to accept her resignation. Newsday reported exclusively on February 13 that Sharma held five meetings with the DPP between December 6 and 14 on a matter that was before the courts. Henderson later wrote a six-page statement giving details of those meetings, which dealt with claims that the DPP’s department had charged a particular individual even though they had full knowledge of a conspiracy to falsely implicate that individual; that certain senior members of the DPP’s department were perceived as racist and that charges against a certain individual had been racially motivated; and that the charges could have repercussions for Henderson’s job as DPP.

In the weeks that followed, the controversy was hardly ever out of the spotlight, with politicians, legal experts and others weighing in on the issue. Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday wrote a letter to the PM in which he expressed the view that the PNM Government was trying to get rid of CJ Sharma because they couldn’t control him. Details surfaced about a meeting between Sharma and Jeremie at which the CJ alleg-edly expressed the view that prominent surgeon Dr Vijay Naraynsingh, who was before the courts charged with the murder of his second wife, could not possibly be guilty of such an offence. Sharma allegedly asked the AG if there was any way that prosecution could be aborted.

That meeting allegedly took place three days after Naraynsingh was charged. Jeremie submitted a report on the matter to PM Manning on January 5. In a statement to the Senate on February 15, Manning said he had received letters from the AG and DPP in mid-January making several allegations against the CJ in the discharge of his duties. He said he was in the “fact-finding phase” of determining whether the question of removing the CJ ought to be investigated and had sought legal advice on the matter.

Up to that time, Sharma had remain-ed silent on the matter in public, although he had written two letters to the PM in which he categorically denied the allegation. However, he broke his silence on February 25 with a statement in which he was highly critical of media coverage of the matter. He said at that time: “The Chief Justice is concerned that journalism ap--pears to have indeed hit an all-time low.” The Law Association was also critical of media coverage of the CJ controversy and called on the DPP to take action against certain media houses for their reporting of the matter. On February 28, Justice Mark Mohammed, who had been present at a December 6, 2004,  meeting between the CJ and the DPP, submitted a statement on the matter to PM Manning.

More than a month passed before Manning went to Parliament last Friday to announce that after consideration, he had advised the Presi-dent to set up a tribunal to examine the question of the removal of the CJ. Manning said a tribunal of the Chief Justice’s peers would “examine the issue in order to determine whether or not the Chief Justice ought to be removed from office, and if they so find, to refer the matter to the Privy Council for final decision.” The members of the tribunal, who can come from any Common-wealth jurisdiction, will be named shortly. Under the Constitution, when faced with allegations against the CJ, the PM must decide whether the question of removing the CJ ought to be investigated.

If the PM is satisfied that such an investigation is warranted, he must refer the matter to the President to appoint a tribunal comprising judges and ex-judges from anywhere in the Commonwealth. If the tribunal determines that the CJ should be removed from office, it then refers the matter to the Privy Council for confirmation or otherwise.