Sat gives up judicial work

Embroiled in controversy over the last 15 months and amidst warnings Tuesday night from President George Maxwell Richards that he would act shortly in the matter, Sharma yesterday evening issued a two-page statement, explaining why he decided to step down from sitting in court.

Sharma stated, “in recognition of the principles which underpin the administration of justice, the Chief Justice has decided that he will not execute any of his judicial functions as Chief Justice until the resolution of this matter and will limit his functions to those that are strictly administrative in nature.”

He continued, “ in this latter regard, it is important that the public understands that existing administrative functions of the Chief Justice do not now include the rostering of judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, a function which the Chief Justice had delegated some time ago.”

Justice Roger Hamel-Smith, the most senior judge after Sharma, rosters judges in the Court of Appeal and High Court. Hamel-Smith will from today be responsible for all judicial functions in the Supreme Court. However, Sharma retains his position as chairman of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.

It is the first time in the history of Trinidad and Tobago that a Chief Justice has been forced to step down from performing his judicial functions. Sharma joined the Supreme Court in 1984, but was quickly elevated to the Court of Appeal. He was considered the ultimate successor to Chief Justice Clinton Bernard.

But when Bernard retired in 1995, the then President Noor Hassanali appointed Michael de la Bastide SC as the new Chief Justice, literally bypassing Sharma for the post. De la Bastide was recruited from outside the judiciary.

Sharma carried the hurt for several years, but continued in the Court of Appeal. When de la Bastide was about to retire in 2002, Prime Minister Patrick Manning recommended that Hamel-Smith be the next Chief Justice. But the then President Arthur NR Robinson decided to appoint the next in the line, Sharma, who was appointed the new CJ in July 2002.

Trouble began for Sharma in 2005 when Manning received complaints from Attorney General John Jeremie and DPP Geoffrey Henderson.

It was alleged that Sharma tried to get Henderson to withdraw a charge against his friend and prominent vascular surgeon Dr Vijay Naraynsingh, who was charged with murdering his second wife Chandra.

When Manning recommended to the President that a tribunal be appointed to investigate whether Sharma should be removed from office, he filed for judicial review and obtained an order blocking the appointment of the tribunal.

In 2006, Sharma ran into further trouble. This time, Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls claimed that Sharma tried to influence him in reaching a certain decision in the trial of former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday who was before the court charged with failing to declare his London bank account to the Integrity Commission for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. After weeks of investigations, Assistant Commissioner Wellington Virgil recommended that a charge of attempting to pervert the course of public justice be laid against Sharma. But Sharma moved against the deputy DPP Carla Brown-Antoine on July 10 and obtained an injunction.

Days later, the injunction was widened to include Virgil and Commissioner of Police Trevor Paul.

On July 14 when the police tried to execute a warrant of arrest on Sharma at his home at Fairways, Maraval, Justice Judith Jones widened the order further to include every member of the 7,000-strong police service.

In reaching his decision to step down from judicial duties, Sharma said the court has to determine whether criminal proceedings should lawfully be instituted against the Chief Justice on the particular facts.

“The court must also determine the legality of criminal proceedings instituted after the court had granted the stays mentioned above. The Chief Justice is certainly not asserting that he is above the criminal law or that he is immune to the court’s processes, but rather that in the particular facts of this case, there has been an abuse of power and an abuse of process by the executive branch of government for the sole purpose of effecting his removal from office. It is these abuses that render the criminal proceedings unlawful.”

Sharma said he was mindful that a criminal charge exists against him. “The Chief Justice is mindful of the importance of the independence of the judiciary and the critical need for its insulation from the executive branch of the government. In fact, the Chief Justice is by his action before the court, an action to which every citizen is entitled, seeking also to protect and to ensure the independence of the judiciary over which he presides.”

Sharma believes it would not be correct for him to preside over proceedings in court while this charge hangs over his head.

He decided to step down from performing his judicial duties pending the determination of the judicial review case which challenges the criminal proceedings. Sharma said yesterday he intends to stay out of court until his name is cleared. He retires from the judiciary in January 2008.