AG’s Statement

ATTORNEY-GENERAL John Jeremie on Monday night gave a 22-minute televised address to the nation from NCC TV, Lady Young Road, Morvant, on the allegations against Chief Justice Sat Sharma that he attempted to interfere in the murder inquiry of Dr Vijay Naraynsingh and in the Integrity trial of former prime minister Basdeo Panday. Following is the AG’s statement in full:

Fellow Citizens, over the last three days we have seen a situation develop in Trinidad and Tobago which is largely unprecedented. Given the fact that so much has occurred and so much has been said, it is incumbent on me, as Attorney General, to lay the facts before you without emotion, without forming any judgments, in an attempt to bring some clarity to the current circumstances.

Recent developments in our country have been the source of great concern to all persons who have observed the unfolding of allegations against the Chief Justice, along with court and police actions resulting therefrom. In the light of all the emotions and other feelings generated by these issues, it is my duty as the officer of the State responsible for the administration of justice to make sure that the public has a clear view of the facts so that each citizen, properly informed, will be in the best position to assess the situation and come to his or her own unbiased conclusion.

In January of 2005, some 19 months ago, complaints were made to the Honourable Prime Minister pursuant to Section 137 in relation to an alleged attempt by the Chief Justice to influence the Director or Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General in a murder trial involving a friend of the Chief Justice.

In accordance with the principles of natural justice, the Prime Minister called on the Chief Justice to respond to these allegations. The Chief Justice responded. Based on information received, the Prime Minister sought and obtained further information from Mr Justice Mark Mohammed, a judicial officer. Following this, the Prime Minister again wrote to the Chief Justice, calling on him to respond to the statements made by Justice Mohammed. The Chief Justice duly complied by submitting a response.

The Prime Minister then sought advice of two British Senior Counsel Sir Godfray le Quesne QC and Mr Mark Strachan QC as to whether, on the totality of the evidence, he should proceed to advise the President on the appointment of a Tribunal under Section 137 of the Constitution. The Prime Minister also sought advice of local Senior Counsel Mr Douglas Mendes. All these Senior Counsel, having reviewed the evidence presented to them, independently advised the Prime Minister that he should proceed forthwith to appoint a Tribunal as dictated by Section 137 of the Constitution to enquire into whether the Chief Justice had attempted to favourably influence the prosecution of a friend.

It should be noted that contrary to what is being bandied about in some quarters and on some platforms, the Prime Minister did not initiate this complaint, nor did he provide any evidence of his own nor does he have any direct or personal interest in the matter. The Prime Minister was simply reporting to the President on a complaint made to him as he is duty bound to do by the Constitution.

The Prime Minister, after consideration of the advice given to him by Senior Counsel, then proceeded to advise the President to appoint the Tribunal pursuant to Section 137 of the Constitution. However, the Chief Justice challenged the decision of the Prime Minister on several grounds. The Chief Justice claimed in the High Court proceedings that the Prime Minister was motivated by bias in any representation to have a Section 137 Tribunal appointed. Those court proceedings blocked the Prime Minister from taking action under Section 137 of the Constitution. The proceedings have since been the subject of substantial amendment by the Chief Justice to include Justice of Appeal Hamel Smith but these amendments have largely been disallowed by the trial judge last week. Nineteen months after the first allegations were made against the Chief Justice the matter is still before the court, and no decision has been made on the substantive matter, and I am unaware of any imminent decision. I tell you all of this by way of background so that the public can be properly informed on this very serious development.

Separate and apart from what I have just outlined, in April 2006, sometime after the conclusion of the trial of the matter The Police v Basdeo Panday, the Chief Magistrate made a written complaint to the Prime Minister alleging that the Chief Justice had attempted to influence his decision in that matter. The Prime Minister once again called upon the Chief Justice to respond to these allegations. On May 10, 2006, the Chief Justice published a lengthy document which was carried in the daily newspapers. He made allegations of his own against the Chief Magistrate. The Chief Justice also referred the Chief Magistrate to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission which I am advised is in the process of conducting its own independent inquiry.

In relation to this second complaint, on May 11, 2006 the Prime Minister wrote the Attorney General asking him to take such steps as he might consider appropriate in the matter. On the same day, I as Attorney General, wrote separately to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to the Commissioner of Police. In my letter to the Commissioner of Police, I requested that the police take steps to investigate the matter of the allegations made against the Chief Justice, as well as the allegations made by the Chief Justice against the Chief Magistrate, the Attorney General and all other citizens mentioned in his complaint.

The police conducted thorough investigations which were required of them. In addition, for the first time in our history the attorneys for the potential accused, that is, the Chief Justice, were allowed to make representations to the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is now public knowledge that the recommendation of the investigating officer was that a charge should be laid against Mr Satnarine Sharma, the Chief Justice. But before that charge could be laid and again, in an unprecedented action, attorneys for the Chief Justice obtained an Order in the High Court in the absence of any representative of the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, the effect of which was to specifically prevent action by the police on any recommendation made by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions.

I am advised that the Commissioner of Police then sought and obtained advice, independent of the State machinery, from two eminent Senior Counsel who practise at the Criminal Bar with respect both to the effect of the Order of the Court and the contents of the police file.

An application was then made to the Court by the Attorneys for the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions to vacate the Order. The Order was not vacated and a decision on that matter was fixed for Tuesday July 18, 2006. The hearing of this matter was subsequently brought forward at short notice to this morning and the Order was confirmed thereby restraining the entire Police Service from executing the arrest warrant on the Chief Justice.

My fellow citizens, in his public statement which is published today in the Newspapers, the Commissioner of Police himself says that he then took command of the file. Further, he states that he formed a view on the evidence contained in the file.

He sought the views of independent Senior Counsel on the second expanded Order of the Court to include Mr Virgil. He also sought the views of independent Senior Counsel as to the way forward. In other words, the police were doing police work independent of any external force or interference from any quarter. Acting on the advice of Senior Counsel the Commissioner states that on Friday afternoon a judicial officer then reviewed the evidence and issued a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice in relation to the criminal charge of attempting to pervert the course of public justice. The Chief Justice has therefore been duly charged with an indictable offence. His guilt or innocence now stands to be established in a court of law. It is this process which will preserve our democracy and not the misinformation or self-serving pronouncements emanating from political and other quarters.

The Commissioner of Police, acting in obedience to the warrant, caused police officers to attempt to execute the warrant on Mr Satnarine Sharma, the Chief Justice, later that afternoon. They were not successful for events which need not detain us tonight. Suffice it to say that further amendments had been made to the Court Order this time to include every single police officer of Trinidad and Tobago, once again in the absence of any representative of the Police Service.

With respect to the conduct of the police, a completely false and misleading impression has been created in the minds of the public that a contingent of heavily armed police officers swooped down in a show of force on the home of the Chief Justice in order to intimidate him prior to the laying of criminal charges. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. The police detail which carried out duty with respect to the warrant comprised only two officers in civilian attire. The armed police officers that were shown on television and in the newspapers were in fact members of the security detail assigned to guard the Chief Justice and accordingly they could not possibly have been sent to his home to arrest him since their job remains to protect and secure his person and his household.

In light of all that I have just outlined, where does that leave us. In summary, this is the situation:

(i) Section 137 of the supreme law, that is the Constitution, says that if the conduct of the Chief Justice is called into question, the Prime Minister should refer the matter of the Chief Justice’s conduct to the President whose duty it is to appoint a Tribunal of eminently qualified persons, Judges of the Commonwealth, to investigate the matter to determine what action should follow. In the context of the first complaint this matter has been blocked in the High Court by actions initiated by the Chief Justice and the country awaits the end of due process in these proceedings.

(ii) In the more recent situation, an allegation of specific criminal conduct has been thoroughly investigated by the police resulting in a criminal charge being laid against Mr Satnarine Sharma, the Chief Justice. In this instance, the Chief Justice, acting through his attorneys, has obtained court orders preventing the police from acting upon a warrant issued by a judicial officer. It is interesting to note that some persons offering public advice on this matter take the position that any action against the Chief Justice must be confined to Section 137 of the Constitution, which requires that a Tribunal be set up, but they omit to tell you that the Chief Justice has taken action in the High Court to block the implementation of Section 137, not once, but twice, in relation to both complaints made against him. In short, as it stands now, arising out of legal challenges, the Prime Minister cannot act to have a Tribunal investigate the first complaint, nor can the police proceed with respect to the criminal charges for which a warrant has been obtained, and in respect of which the Chief Justice stands legally charged.

Permit me to make certain observations.

The Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary and by virtue of that fact, the Chairman of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission. Every single judicial officer is amenable to discipline by that Commission.

A criminal charge has now been laid against the Chief Justice by the issue of a warrant in the very courts over which he presides. Orders of increasing width have been made by a High Court Judge, the last of which has the effect of placing the Chief Justice above the law in the sense that no police officer in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago can lawfully arrest him.

The provisions of the Constitution insofar as they relate to discipline of the Chief Justice, that is to say Section 137 of the Constitution are expressed in the Constitution as being exercisable by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has been prevented by actions instituted by the Chief Justice in the very courts over which he presides from taking any steps to even begin the process to enquire into the conduct of the Chief Justice.

This has occurred not once, but twice.

The Chief Justice is the subject of a criminal charge in circumstances where the Prime Minister is prevented by order of the Court from invoking Section 137 of the Constitution. In the last set of proceedings initiated on the complaint of the Chief Magistrate, the presiding judge has adjourned the matter to sometime in October 2006 as the next hearing date. This is the very matter in which the police have now laid a criminal charge.

My fellow citizens, the prospect of a Chief Justice defending himself on a criminal charge before the courts is one which must fill us all with a deep sense of foreboding as a people. I state merely the fact that unprecedented orders of the court are being made at a time when the actions of the Chief Justice are being called into question by a number of senior office holders in Trinidad and Tobago. It is a fact arising out of all of this that we now have the Chief Justice who has been charged for a criminal offence and for whom a warrant has been issued, presiding over the courts of the country.

I recognise that the framers of the Constitution could not have envisaged and provided for every conceivable issue which this country might face over the life of the Constitution.

The very constitution by which I hold office establishes a separation of powers. The Executive or Cabinet in which I have the pleasure to serve is and must be separate from the Judiciary. This is required so that every citizen can feel comfortable and be assured that decisions taken by the executive are subject to review and scrutiny. In fact, the Separation of Executive from the Judiciary is a pillar on which our democracy is built. No Cabinet, no Prime Minister, no Attorney General is above the law. This is a critical foundation on which our Republic is established. The actions of all must be subject to scrutiny. All must be subject to the law. There can be no exceptions. There must be one law for rich or poor, big or small. There must be one law for all. Our young Republic has developed quickly to a point now where our Police Service understands that not only do we say that the Rule of Law must apply but we practice it as a principle.

From Prime Minister to Attorney General, the police have investigated complaints. Criminal proceedings have been launched against senior Cabinet Ministers, a former Prime Minister, without fear or favour on the part of the Police Service.

Fellow citizens, the present situation is wholly unacceptable. As Attorney General, I simply would like to see that good sense prevails in all quarters in order to protect the wider interests of all the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. As it stands now, you have the facts before you. Good order in the country is dependent upon the proper functioning of all arms of the State - from Parliament to the Presidency. The Government is but one part of this complex State machinery, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the law in full knowledge and expectation that no one, regardless of station, is above the law.

I thank you for your attention and May God bless our Nation.