CHIEF JUSTICE NOT BACKING DOWN

CHIEF JUSTICE Sat Sharma has responded to Prime Minister Patrick Manning, saying he has done nothing wrong with respect to his performance as head of the Judiciary. Reliable sources told Newsday that Sharma feels he is being unjustly targetted by certain persons, and believes it is a calculated attempt to get rid of him.

Reports revealed that Sharma has disputed the allegations made against him by the Attorney General (AG) John Jeremie and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Geoffrey Henderson, and in his response to PM Manning, said he would fight this battle all the way to the Privy Council to clear his name. Manning wrote to Sharma last week and gave him (Sharma) until Ash Wednesday to respond in writing to the allegations. Sources revealed yesterday that Sharma sent his reply on Tuesday. Sharma responded to complaints sent to Manning by Jeremie and Henderson.

Sharma continues to remain tight-lipped over the entire affair. For yet another time yesterday, he declined comment on the impasse. Sharma was in his office at the Hall of Justice yesterday, despite the allegations swirling around him and the possibility that the procedure for the removal of a Chief Justice could be triggered to have him removed. Sharma has assembled a team of lawyers ready to file for judicial review of any decision Manning may takes on the matter. Attorney General Jeremie is in Suriname attending a meeting on the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). But acting AG Camille Robinson-Regis, when pressed for a comment at the weekly post-Cabinet press briefing yesterday, said she had nothing to say on the matter.

Events started to unfold last year when some judges reportedly complained about Sharma. Following this, Sharma wrote disciplinary letters to two High Court judges over long and outstanding judgments. An internal inquiry was held after which several recommendations were made, including the method for assigning judges to cases. Reports revealed that this was not accepted by Sharma. Justice Roger Hamel-Smith, who has acted as Chief Justice on many occasions, reportedly visited President George Maxwell Richards and handed him a copy of the report of the internal inquiry. Reports also revealed that a judge met with PM Manning recently to discuss the matter concerning Sharma.

In another matter, Henderson submitted a report to Manning regarding interaction he had with Sharma in December 2004.  According to reports, Henderson contended that he was summoned to a meeting at the Hall of Justice concerning a case before the courts. In his report, Jeremie admitted he was present at a meeting between Sahrma and Henderson. High Court Judge Mark Mohammed was said to have also been present at one of the meetings. Sources said that one of Sharma’s concerns has to do with a judge meeting with Manning.  A meeting of judges of the Supreme Court was held on Wednesday at the Hall of Justice to discuss the matter, but judges remained tight-lipped over the discussions.

Another concern of Sharma, reports revealed, is who would sit to deal with his case if he chooses to challenge any issue in court. One judge, speaking on condition of anonymity, said with the Judiciary divided at the moment, Sharma was concerned about who would sit in the High Court to judge his case on the merits. The Council of the Law Association held a regular meeting at the Crowne Plaza Hotel yesterday afternoon at which the matter of the CJ came up. The council was reportedly concerned at the various newspaper headlines on the matter and promised to discuss the issue at another meeting soon. To remove a Chief Justice, the President must invoke Section 137 of the Constitution after receiving advice from the Prime Minister.

It was in 1990 that the Judicial and Legal Service Commission reported High Court Judge Richard Crane to then President Noor Hassanali concerning his performance on the Bench. A three-member tribunal comprising Justice Evan Rees (chairman), Justice Garvin Scott, and Justice Lennox Deyalsingh was appointed to investigate Crane, but this tribunal was blocked when Crane filed for judicial review as well as filing a constitutional motion. Crane lost in the High Court, but won in the Appeal Court by a 2-1 margin (with Sharma dissenting). The matter went to the Privy Council in 1993 which ruled unanimously in Crane’s favour. He died without receiving his damages and costs.