Pettiness on Sharma’s part

We can only speculate on the CJ’s motives, but what other reasonable interpretation can be placed on his action? Justice Hamel-Smith has always been the Acting Chief Justice during Mr Sharma’s absence. The person chosen in his stead, Justice Margot Warner, is junior to Hamel-Smith. The legal fraternity tells us that such a decision is without precedent. So, if Mr Sharma’s reason was not mere spite, what was it?

As the public is now aware, Justice Hamel-Smith played a key role in the Government’s decision to try to set up a tribunal to investigate the CJ. It was Mr Hamel-Smith who, on being told by the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions of meetings held between them and the CJ to discuss the case of murder-accused Professor Vijay Naraynsingh, advised that such conversations were improper. This eventually led to a fact-finding mission on the part of the Government, and the attempt to set up a tribunal which the CJ is now fighting.

So it is understandable if Mr Sharma feels aggrieved at Justice Hamel-Smith. But is such grievance sufficient reason to bring the Judiciary into further disrepute? Mr Sharma has chosen to ignore the fact that a significant section of the populace already views this situation as having tainted the Judiciary. Indeed, calls were even made from some quarters for Mr Sharma to resign in order to prevent further damage. But this was never really on the cards. If Mr Sharma had resigned, he may well have won a moral victory over Prime Minister Patrick Manning. But he equally well may have not, since the same persons calling for his resignation might then have turned around and said that he only resigned to avoid facing the tribunal.

Unfortunately, Mr Sharma didn’t choose that latter option either. Instead, he decided to contest the very Constitutional provision which lays down the procedure to remove a Chief Justice. So what should have been a legal battle has now become a political one. But, having guided the affair into these unsavoury channels, we would have thought that Mr Sharma would have been extremely circumspect in his official actions while awaiting the court’s decision.

Instead, he appears to have publicly and deliberately embarrassed the second most senior judge in the land. Not only that, but Mr Sharma has also placed another judge, Ms Warner, in a most uncomfortable position. Had she defied her boss’ order, she would have been seen as siding with Mr Hamel-Smith. But, having accepted, there will surely be a perception of conflict among the nation’s top judges. And, even though this may be entirely irrelevant to the quality of the decisions handed down by these judges, the net effect has certainly been a further undermining of public confidence in the Judiciary. All of which could have been avoided had Mr Sharma not decided to take a petty-minded poke at his colleague.