CJ put pressure on AG, DPP
PRIME MINISTER Patrick Manning said in an affidavit filed yesterday that there was prima facie evidence that Chief Justice Sat Sharma had attempted to pressure Attorney General John Jeremie and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Geoffrey Hender-son to drop the murder charge against Prof Vijay Naraynsingh, who was accused of killing his second wife. According to Manning, Dr Narayn-singh was an acquaintance of the Chief Justice. Affidavits were filed in the Port-of-Spain High Court Registry yesterday on behalf of the Prime Minister, Attorney General and the DPP. They were filed in response to a judicial review application brought by the Chief Justice against the decision of the Prime Minister to make a representation to the President that the question of removing Sharma from office ought to be investigated. Hearing comes up before Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer in the Port-of-Spain First Civil Court this morning. In his affidavit, Manning said in deciding whether he should make the representation to the President, he asked himself if the complaint made against the Chief Justice was sufficient to call on the President to act. He said he read the statements supplied to him by Sharma, Jeremie, Henderson, and Justice Mark Mohammed. "I took into account the fact that the Chief Justice’s accusers were the holders of high office and responsible officials and that there was nothing put before me to suggest any motive to fabricate their complaints." Manning continued, "I also took account of the fact that the DPP’s allegations of pressure being put upon him by the Chief Justice to drop the charge against Dr Naraynsingh were supported in part by both the Attorney General and Justice Mohammed. Manning also took into account that judges decide cases before them and it was the duty of the DPP to decide what criminal cases should be brought before the courts. "The DPP is required to discharge his duty free from interference from any other authority. I also had regard to the judicial oath to ‘do right by all manner of people after the laws and usages of Trinidad and Tobago without fear or favour, affection or ill-will." Responding to the issue of funding for the Judiciary, Manning disagreed with the Chief Justice’s suggestion that the Judiciary should be given a block vote and should have control over the money allocated to it. "My view is that the Judiciary should be adequately funded but that since the Executive still remains accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of the funds allocated to the Judiciary, the Executive should continue to be responsible for the disbursement of such funds and that the practice whereby the Judiciary should seek the Executive’s approval for the expenditure should remain." AG told me about CJ’s talks with DPP
I, PATRICK MANNING, Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago of Whitehall, Maraval Road, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, make oath and say as follows:
1. I am the Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
2.The facts and matters deposed to herein are within my own personal knowledge true and correct except where otherwise stated to be on information and belief in which case I verily believe the same to be true and correct.
3. I have read the affidavit of Satnarine Sharma, Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago, sworn to and filed herein on April 12 2005 and the affidavit of Stanley John, Justice of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago, also sworn to and filed herein on April 12 2005. I swear this affidavit primarily in response to the Chief Justice’s Affidavit.
4. I did meet with Chief Justice after his appointment to that office and we did discuss the question of disclosing the names of judicial officers in notes to Cabinet seeking approval for travel and we did have a difference of opinion on the matter, as the Chief Justice alleges in paragraph 4 of his affidavit.
5. At this meeting, the Chief Justice also raised with me the question of funding for the Judiciary and in that regard we again had a difference of opinion. It was the Chief Justice’s view that the Judiciary should be given a block vote and should have control over the expenditure of funds allocated to the Judiciary. My view is that the Judiciary should be adequately funded but that since the Executive still remains accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of the funds allocated to the Judiciary, the Executive should continue to be responsible for the disbursement of such funds and that the practice whereby the Judiciary should seek the Executive’s approval for the expenditure of funds should remain.
6. It is true that a public announcement of the Government’s thinking on the relocation of the Port of Spain Magistracy was made before any discussion was held with the Chief Justice on the matter, as the Chief Justice alleges in paragraph 6 of his affidavit. I appreciated the Chief Justice’s objections to the lack of consultation and efforts were made by me and by Minister Saith to remedy the situation.
7. The Chief Justice and I did have a disagreement over the method of appointing silk as he alleges in paragraphs 7 & 8 of his affidavit. He was of the view that silk ought to be appointed by the Judiciary and the legal profession. I was of the view that the Executive should continue to appoint silk, after consultation with the Judiciary and the legal profession. In 2003, the Chief Justice also proposed that someone whom he informed me was his nephew be appointed as silk. However, after consultation, it was decided not to make that appointment. I did not tell the Chief Justice that I was dissatisfied with some of the silk appointed in 2003, nor that that was the reason why none would be appointed in 2004. In fact, I have been informed by numerous persons that the appointments in 2003 have met with the general approval of the profession. In 2004, the Chief Justice did raise the matter of appointment of silk with me, as alleged in paragraph 8 of his affidavit. The Chief Justice submitted that there were not enough silk from South Trinidad. I told the Chief Justice that 8 silk had been appointed in the previous year, that that was sufficient and that there was no need to appoint any further silk in 2004. The Chief Justice then put forward the name of his nephew once again, but again his proposal was denied.
8. I am aware of the fact that in the past Chief Justices have levelled criticisms against the Government in their speeches at the commencement of the law term. However, I also noticed with some gratification that in his last such speech in 2004 this Chief Justice expressed satisfaction that the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary had improved and that the Executive was more receptive to the problems of the Judiciary. I was not surprised at this since I had made a conscious effort to improve the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary
9. I agree that at times the conversations between the Chief Justice and me became heated, but it was always the Chief Justice who became agitated if I did not agree with his positions. The Chief Justice frequently told me he never sought any assistance or favours from me and that he never wanted anything from me for himself and that power and position mean nothing to him. I have never been concerned about the disagreements which the Chief Justice and I have had. As far as I am concerned, such differences of opinion are inevitable. The Chief Justice himself acknowledged this in his 2004 speech at the commencement of the law term. I have not allowed the Chief Justice’s public criticisms of the Executive to affect my approach to the Chief Justice’s public criticisms o the Judiciary. Despite our differences, I consider that I have had an excellent relationship with the Chief Justice and I have done all that is possible to accommodate the requests made of the Executive by the Judiciary. Indeed, on several occasions the Chief Justice has said that he holds me in high regard.
10. In early December 2004, the Attorney General brought to my attention an internal investigation which had taken place within the Judiciary into a complaint brought by a Judge against the Chief Justice. The complaint concerned the alleged transfer of a case by the Chief Justice from the Judge at the request of one of the lawyers in the case. The Attorney General told me that a report on the incident authored by three judges had been produced. I told the Attorney General that in my opinion that was a mater for the Judiciary to deal with itself.
11. In early December 2004 as well, the Attorney General drew my attention to conversations which the Chief Justice was having with the DPP and himself about the pending criminal proceedings against Dr Narayansingh. I told the Attorney General that I did not wish to get involved in that matter and I expressed the hope that the Judiciary might be able to deal with it internally without the need for the intervention of the Executive.
12. On January 3 2005, the Attorney General drew my attention to an article in the Sunday Guardian referring to meetings with the Chief Justice concerning the Narayansingh enquiry. I told the Attorney General again that as far as I was concerned the Judiciary should deal with the matter and that I did not want to have anything to do with it.
13. The following day, the Attorney General reported to me that he had had spoken to Justice of Appeal Roger-Hamel Smith who had expressed grave concern over the matter and had said that this was not a matter which the Judiciary could handle since it involved the Chief Justice and that it fell to be dealt with by the Prime Minister under section 137 of the Constitution. I told the Attorney General that I would think about it.
14. On January 5 2005, the Attorney General brought to me an unsigned statement which he had prepared concerning the conversations he had with the Chief Justice in December 2004. After we had a discussion on the matter I suggested that he visit his Excellency the President to inform him of these developments.
15.The following week the Attorney General returned with his signed statement dated January 5 2005 and a statement dated January 10 2005 signed by the DPP.
16. I did not tell the Attorney General to investigate the matter or take a statement from the DPP, nor did I refuse him leave to go abroad so that he could attend to the matter.
17. My initial attitude to the reports of what appeared to me to be improper approaches being made by the Chief Justice to the DPP and the Attorney General was not to become involved and to hope and suggest that the Judiciary dealt with the matter internally. My attitude changed when I received written statements from the Attorney General and the DPP setting out what appeared to me to be allegations that the Chief Justice was attempting to interfere in a pending criminal trial. I could no longer ignore the situation. Written statements having been submitted to me which contained allegations of impropriety against the Chief Justice, I considered it my constitutional duty to ask the Chief Justice for a response and to decide whether the procedure under section 137 of the Constitution should be invoked.
18. The Chief Justice met with me on Tuesday 25 January 2005 at my request as alleged in paragraph 19 of his affidavit. I do not remember the Chief Justice telling me that the Attorney General had agreed with him that the meetings he had with the DPP and the Attorney General were not improper nor that the Attorney General had been telling him all along that there was no truth in the newspaper report and that after hearing his side of the story and questioning the DPP he was satisfied that there was no truth to any allegation of impropriety. The Attorney General has never told me that he did not think that the conversations between the Chief Justice, the DPP and himself were not improper nor that there was no truth in the newspaper article. However, the Chief Justice did appear to me to be very surprised that I had a statement from the Attorney General.
19. At the end of the meeting on January 25 2005, I gave the Chief Justice a copy of the signed statement I had received from the DPP as well as a copy of the unsigned draft statement given to me by the Attorney General. The exhibits referred to in the DPP’s statement were not attached to the copy of the DPP’s statement I gave to the Chief Justice.
20. By letter dated January 26 2005, I forwarded to the Chief Justice a signed copy of the Attorney General’s statement along with a bound copy of the DPP’s statement, with the exhibits attached. I informed the Chief Justice that I had in contemplation the exercise of my power under section 137 of the Constitution. A copy of this letter with the attached statements are annexed to the Chief Justice’s affidavit as exhibit "SS-5."
20. Not long after, I engaged Senior Counsel in Trinidad and Queen’s Counsel from the United Kingdom to advise me on the proper exercise of my powers under Section 137 of the Constitution to represent to the President that the question of removing the Chief Justice ought to be investigated.
21. On February 1 2005, I received the Chief Justice’s letter of that date, a copy of which is annexed to his affidavit as part of exhibit "SS-6."
22. On February 7 2005, I receive an undated letter from the Chief Justice enclosing he Chief Justice’s response to the Attorney General’s and the DPP’s statements. Copies of the Chief Justice’s undated letter and his responses are annexed to the Chief Justice’s affidavit as exhibit "SS-6."
23. On February 10 2005, through Senior Counsel, I forwarded the Chief Justice’s responses to the Attorney General and the DPP for their comments. By letter dated February 11 2005, I advised the Chief Justice that I had passed his responses to the Attorney General and the DPP for their comments and that I would let him have their responses as soon as I received them. A true copy of the letter dated February 11 2005 is now produced and shown to me and annexed hereto and marked "PM1."
24. By letter dated February 14 2005, I wrote to the Honourable Mr Mark Mohammed, a Judge of the High Court, advising him that I had been informed that he was present during one of the conversations between the Chief Justice and the DPP about the case. I therefore asked him to provide me with a written statement on the matter in order to assist me in my deliberations. A true copy of the letter dated February 14 2005 is now produced and shown to me and annexed hereto and marked "PM2."
25. On February 1 2005, Senator Wade Mark, in a remark made in the Senate, had accused the Government of being a part of a plot to remove the Chief Justice from office. For the next two weeks, there were frequent leaks in the newspapers of the statements I had received and there was a general discussion and debate in the media on the matter. It is in these circumstances that, in an attempQt to bring calm and to inform the nation of the steps which I had taken, on February 15 2005, I addressed the Senate on the matter. A transcript of the speech I delivered appears in the newspaper report attached to the Chief Justice’s affidavit as exhibit "SS-10". Among other things, I said: "In mid-January, the Prime Minister received two items of correspondence emanating from the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions making several allegations against the Chief Justice in the discharge of his duties.
When these circumstances arise, the Constitution provides a process by which such matters are dealt with by the Prime Minister. According to the constitutional process, the Prime Minister must decide whether the question or removing the Chief Justice ought to be investigated. Naturally such a decision should be made only:
(A) After a thorough examination of the issues is undertaken; and
(b) If there is a serious enough case to answer. Once the Prime Minister is satisfied that the investigation ought to be carried out, he must refer the matter to the President to appoint a Tribunal....
It is extremely important to note that the Prime Minister does not determine guilt or innocence but merely satisfies himself that the question of removing the Chief Justice from office ought to be investigated.
I draw attention to and emphasise the fact that once the Prime Minister is in receipt of authentic correspondence and is satisfied after due enquiry that the question of removing the Chief Justice from office ought to be investigated, then the Prime Minister must act or be exposed to the serious accusation of dereliction of duty. In this regard, the Prime Minister must be slow to act and only after a thorough examination of the facts...
When all the information is received, it is the intention of the Prime Minister to continue his consultation with his legal constitutional advisors, one from Trinidad and Tobago and two from the United Kingdom who have acknowledged experts in these matters to assist in determining if there is a serious enough case to answer to warrant the setting up of a tribunal to investigate the matter....
It can, therefore be seen that the Prime Minister has not come to any conclusion or decision in the matter since he is not yet in possession of the totality of the facts. The matter is still in a fact-finding phase and it is anticipated that this can continue a while longer until
all of the required information is available."
26. By letter dated February 18 2005, the Chief Justice forwarded a supplemental response to the Attorney General’s statement. A copy of the letter dated February 18 2005 and the supplemental response are annexed to the Chief Justice’s as exhibit "SS-11". Through Senior Counsel, I forwarded the Chief Justice’s supplemental response to the Attorney General for his further comments.
27. On February 21 2005, I received the Attorney General’s reply dated February 18 2005 to the Chief Justice’s response. On February 22 2005, I received the Attorney General’s further reply of the same date to the Chief Justice’s supplemental response and I also received the DPP’s reply dated February 21 2005, I forwarded these replies to the Chief Justice for any further comments which he might wish to make. Copies of the letter dated February 22 2005 and the replies from the Attorney General and the DPP are annexed to the Chief Justice’s affidavit as exhibit "SS-12."
28. On February 28 2005, I received Mr Justice Mark Mohammed’s statement also dated February 28 2005 and, under cover of a letter dated March 1 2005, I forwarded same to the Chief Justice for his comments. A copy of the letter dated March 1 2005 along with Justice Mohammed’s statement are annexed to the Chief Justice’s affidavit as exhibit "SS-13."
29. Under cover of a letter dated March 10 2005, I received the Chief Justice’s further responses to the further statements submitted by the Attorney General and the DPP. A true copy of the letter dated March 10 2005 along with the Chief Justice’s further responses are now produced and shown to me and annexed hereto in a bundle and marked "PM3." There are differences between the documents which I received and the corresponding documents annexed to the Chief Justice’s affidavit as exhibit "SS-15."
30. In deciding whether I should make the representation to the President that the question of removing the Chief Justice from office ought to be investigated, I asked myself whether the complaint made against the Chief Justice had prima facie sufficient basis in fact and was sufficiently serious to warrant the representation to the President. When applying this test, I read all of the statements submitted to me by the DPP, the Attorney General, the Chief Justice and Justice Mark Mohammed and the associated correspondence and I took into account the fact that the Chief Justice‘s accusers were the holders of high office and responsible officials and that there was nothing put before me to suggest any motive to fabricate their complaints. I also took account of the fact that the DPP’s allegations of pressure being put upon him by the Chief Justice to drop the charge against Dr Narayansingh were supported in part by both the Attorney General and Justice Mohammed. I took into consideration the fact that the evidence given by the Attorney General, the DPP and Justice Mohammed was not hearsay and was in respect of events of recent vintage in which they all personally participated.
31. I was of course aware that the Chief Justice denied the allegations. But I was mindful of the fact that it was not my duty, nor was it possible for me, to resolve the conflicts in the evidence nor to determine whether the allegations were well founded in the sense of being finally established. That was the task of the Tribunal to be appointed under section 137.
32. In the circumstances, I concluded that there was prima facie sufficient basis for finding that the Chief Justice had attempted to pressure the Attorney General and the DPP to drop the charges against Dr Narayansingh who was an acquaintance of the Chief Justice.
33. In determining whether the complaint was serious enough to warrant the representation, I took into account the fact that it is the duty of a judge to decide cases brought before him or her and that it was the duty of the DPP to decide what criminal cases should be brought before the courts. In the latter regard, the DPP is required to discharge his duty free from interference from any other authority. I also had regard to the judicial oath to "do right by all manner of people after the laws and usages of Trinidad and Tobago without fear or favour, affection or ill-will." In this regard, I took into consideration that Dr Narayansingh is an acquaintance of the Chief Justice.
34. Taking all the above matters into consideration, I decided that I ought to represent to the President that the question of removing the Chief Justice from office ought to be investigated.
35. Accordingly, by letter dated April 1 2005, I represented to the President that the question of removing the Chief Justice from office ought to be investigated. A copy of the representation is annexed to the Chief Justice’s affidavit as part of exhibit "SS-16."
36. By letter also dated April 1 2005, I informed the Chief Justice that I had made the representation. A copy of this letter is annexed to the Chief Justice’s affidavit as part of exhibit "Ss-16."
Sworn to at White Hall
Maraval Road, Port-of-Spain
this 9th day of May, 2005
Comments
"CJ put pressure on AG, DPP"