Association to get advice on AG

MEMBERS of the Law Association voted yesterday afternoon to seek legal advice from a senior counsel to determine whether Attorney General John Jeremie committed contempt of court in his address to the nation last Monday night.

Lawyers voted 123 to 48 to get the advice before they decide on the next step. According to the record, 200 out of about 1,000 lawyers attended the special meeting, at the Hall of Justice, Port-of-Spain, but many left, either frustrated, or because they had to travel a long distance to reach home.

After the meeting ended at 5.45 pm, Russell Martineau SC, president of the association, an attorney for Chief Justice Sat Sharma, told the media that after receipt of advice from the senior counsel, the assocation was mandated to implement the advice.

Martineau said during the meeting, he read Monday’s statement of Justice Judith Jones when she called for restraint in the matter involving the embattled Chief Justice. “I want to be very restrained and act responsibly. I want to ask the press and everybody to be responsible.”

Martineau said the first thing he did when the meeting started was to inform members of his involvement with the Chief Justice including the attempt to arrest him last Friday.

“I asked the association if there were any objections to me chairing the meeting, and they overwhelmingly said I should chair the meeting. I think we succeeded in having a good meeting, it was a very healthy meeting.”

The senior counsel, who was not named, is to determine whether the statement of the Attorney General had the tendency to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice; damaged public confidence in the administration of justice; scandalised the court; excited in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with all judicial determinations; and imputed improper motives on the part of Jones.

Israel Khan SC was one of the lawyers who expressed concerns at the meeting. After the meeting, Khan, who represents the police service, said the motion was for political consumption. He said the association wants to find out if the Attorney General scandalised the court and committed a contempt.

“People voted like sheep blindly, and if you watch the hands how they voted, the majority are south of the Caroni bridge who voted for the motion. This motion is for a political platform, it has nothing to do with the administration of justice. The Attorney General might have been contemptuous of the presiding judge, but he did not commit a contempt of court. He was right to criticise in public, the administration of justice, I am sure this is not the end.”

When asked who he felt should be the senior counsel, Khan replied, “I hope it is not Ramesh Maharaj, because it was Mrs (Lynette) Maharaj who moved the motion. It is better we go outside the country for a senior counsel.”

Khan said any senior counsel “worth his salt” could never arrive at a decision that the Attorney General committed a contempt of court.

“This is for the political platform, you think the Attorney General did not seek legal advice before he said what he had to say?” Khan asked.