‘Take that fez off in court’

THE COURT of Appeal ruled yesterday that Magistrate Herbert Charles was right to put high-ranking Jamaat Al Muslimeen member Olive Enyahooma-El out of court because he refused to remove his fez from his head.

The Appeal Court comprising Chief Justice Sat Sharma, Madame Justice Margot Warner and Justice Rolston Nelson, dismissed Enyahooma-El’s constitutional motion and ordered him to pay costs to the State. However, attorneys representing Enyahooma-El said they will be filing an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Sunil Gopaul-Gosine and Alvin Ramroop appeared for Enyahooma-El, while Krishendeo Narinesingh, Brandon Primus, and Sean Julien represented the Attorney General. Enyahooma-El, who is also known as Lance Small, and another man went to the Arima Magistrates’ Court on Septem-ber 8, 1988, in the mistaken belief that their matter was to be heard on that day. In fact, it was to be heard the following day.

Enyahooma-El’s case was that on the day in question, he was dressed in a long caftan or jilabba and wore a fez on his head. When Magistrate Charles entered the courtroom, he stood but sat when the magistrate was seated. The prosecutor then requested members of the public to remove their hats. Enyahooma-El did not remove his fez. The prosecutor repeated the request, pointing at the Jamaat man. The magistrate echoed the prosecutor’s request in the direction of the Jamaat member and his companion. Enyahooma-El stated: “I told the magistrate that what we were wearing were not hats but tajs which constitute part of the religious garments. “The magistrate replied ‘well take it off or get out of court.’ I then replied, ‘I am here for a matter’ and the magistrate and the prosecutor shouted aloud to us ‘to get out of the court.’”

The Magistrate stated: “I noticed that a man remained seated at the back of the court with headwear. As presiding magistrate I ordered that he either remove his headwear or leave the court as previously requested by the police officers. “He rose and proceeded to leave without replying. It is not true that that person or anyone spoke to me and told me that he was wearing a taj or that it was a religious garment and I deny that I made any reply.” Enyahooma-El’s companion was sentenced to 14 days’ simple imprisonment for contempt of court.

Justice Nelson, in his judgment, said the removal of headwear in the case of males is usually a sign of respect for the magistrate and a mark of the solemnity of the occasion. He said magistrates may exclude a member of the public from a court for refusing to remove headwear. “If a member of the public raises a religious or other objection to a magistrate’s order or direction, it does not follow automatically that the magistrate must waive his or her order as regards the objector,” the judge added.

Justice Nelson said facts would have to be laid before the magistrate to persuade him or her of the nature and quality of the objection and to enable the magistrate to assess whether the objection is genuine and if the objector should be permitted to remain in court in the interest of the administration of justice. Justice Nelson said the trial judge — Justice Joseph Tam — accepted the magistrate’s reason that Enyahooma-El never informed him that the fez bore religious significance to him. Justice Nelson accepted Justice Tam’s finding of fact. Justice Nelson said the practice in this country has been that women are permitted to cover their heads in the courtroom. He dismissed Enyahooma-El’s contention that there was inequality of treatment.