Sharma’s letter to President proved pivotal to developments

The nation faced the worst judicial crisis in its history, a Chief Justice facing the most serious allegations imaginable. Firstly, accused of trying to lean on State officials to drop a murder charge against his friend and doctor. Secondly, trying to influence the Chief Magistrate, to ease up, or help out, a former prime minister who was on a charge of failing to declare a million dollar foreign bank account.

The ordinary citizen looked on with amazement, fascination and certainly anxiety as, since April, 2005, legal manoeuvres and counter-moves that ranged from applications for judicial review, to injunctions forbidding the entire police service of 7,000 from arresting the Chief Justice were made.

On Friday, when President George Maxwell Richards appointed Justice of Appeal Roger Hamel-Smith to act as Chief Justice (thereby relieving Chief Justice Sat Sharma of his duty) it seemed incredible that it had taken all of 15 months to arrive at the simplest of solutions: dealing with the first allegation against Sharma, which was that he had attempted to interfere in the murder charge against Dr Vijay Naraynsingh.

On that occasion the President had been advised by the Prime Minister to set up a tribunal. This was immediately stalled by Sharma, seeking judicial review of the allegation against him. Sharma had every right to seek judicial review, but the President also had the right to send Sharma on leave and appoint the tribunal according to the Constitution, which eventually would determine the case. The Judiciary should have moved to have a swift trial of the matter. The country would have been spared the absurdity and ignominy of the past 15 months which have given liberty to constitutional and legal experts, loud mouth politicians on both sides of the divide and not to mention those who see race in every fluttering leaf. Not even the ongoing destruction of the opposition UNC could compete, if compete is the word, with the Sharma case. The nonsense going on in that party has been relegated to the inside pages while the Sharma story dominated the front pages.

Were it not for the publication on Friday July 14, by this newspaper, of telephone records of calls between the Sharma residence and the office and cell phone of Justice Judith Jones, by whom his legal arguments were being heard, the public would not have gotten to see up-front the difference in the manner in which the system works for the high and mighty and for the meek and lowly. On Friday July 14 the police had moved to arrest Sharma on allegations that he had attempted to pervert the course of justice in the Basdeo Panday trial.

The biggest irony however is that despite all the legal moves, counter-moves, ridiculous suggestions and the millions spent in costs and fees, Sharma’s current battle came to an end almost by his own hand last Friday.

As Shakespeare said in Hamlet Act 3, scene 1, “He hoisted himself with his own petard.” When Sharma wrote to the President on Wednesday, informing him that he would only be carrying out administrative duties and not be adjudicating in any matters, he virtually gave the President the opportunity to act under Section 103 of the Constitution.

What is the role of the Chief Justice if not to adjudicate? Sign letters? Occupy a large office on the third floor of the Hall of Justice? Was it his decision to make? Clearly not. He could not, as it were, send himself on leave, and decide how he would handle the situation.

There had to be some higher power. There was. The President, with the Constitution on his side. In essence, Section 103 relieved Sharma not just of his office but of officiating at three major ceremonial occasions in the life of a chief justice.

He will not be there, at least not officially, when the nation parades its military face at the celebration of Independence on August 31. Neither will he be there, again not officially, to stand on the podium at President’s House beside the President and Prime Minister as national awards, Trinity Cross or otherwise, are handed out to the chosen few. Most historically of all he will not stand on the steps of the great Hall of Justice to take the salute at the parade, which marks the opening of the new law term 2006-07, to give the opening address to the assembled legal luminaries.

However, in one stroke of his own pen he gave the President the opening to invoke section 103, and the President acted. These roles have now fallen to an eager Roger Hamel-Smith who will act for him, unless Sharma continues the legal moves and tries to bring about an injunction against the new appointee.

As he considers the situation today, should President Richards, despite Sharma’s appeal for judicial review in the Naraynsingh case, not go ahead anyway and appoint the tribunal?

Do the top citizens in this country think that the ordinary man in the street really believes in one law for all? If they ever did, the events of the last 15 months have served only to shatter such myths.