MORE COURT FOR CJ

Attorney Gerald Ramdeen issued this warning yesterday as he condemned moves by the Archie- led body for a restart of the 53 part-heard matters left pending by Ayers-Caesar following her elevation to the High Court bench on March 12.

Ayers-Caesar subsequently resigned from the position after it was revealed that the matters over which she presided in the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magistrate’s Court were still pending.

The decision has since triggered upheaval among some of the 53 accused and their families as well as stakeholders within and outside of legal circles.

But during a news conference at his Cornelio Street office, Woodbrook, Ramdeen said the move was unlawful.

“Every step will be taken to ensure that the 53 people affected by this decision get what they are entitled to, which is due process and protection of law and if this decision that is made by this body of persons is not reversed by Monday, then it will go to court,” he told reporters, adding the move will be unprecedented.

Claiming the “summit,” which met on Wednesday at the CJ’s conference room, Hall of Justice, Port-of-Spain, was “clandestinely configured” to include three Appeal Court judges and three High Court judges, Ramdeen said: “I hope that the six judges, including the Chief Justice, understand that they cannot partake. It is not a body that is set up under statute and it may well be because of what happened on the 25th (May), you will have a court action where the defendant would be the Chief Justice, three judges of Appeal, three judges of the High Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions, four members of the Law Association, the Chief Magistrate and the Registrar of the Supreme Court.” He added: “That should tell you the mess we find ourselves in and where we are as a people and where the administration of justice is today.” Ramdeen, who is representing one of the 53 accused, Akili Charles, said the decision constituted a stain on the Judiciary.

“From where I sit and from where many other people sit, what transpired on May 24, 2017, between the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief Justice, the Law Association, members off the Criminal Bar, the Acting Chief Magistrate, the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the six judges who participated is entirely unlawful,” he said.

“If they have any regard for the Constitution, the law and the rights, most important, of the 53 people who are affected by this decision, they will all do what is right and let the Chief Justice know that what happened there should not have happened.” Ramdeen, who is also a UNC senator, reiterated that a special general meeting of the Law Association will be held on Thursday to determine whether there should be a vote of no-confidence in Archie as CJ.

He said on Friday, the JLSC also will go to court to answer an application for judicial review as to why they did not comply with the law regarding the manner in which Ayers-Caesar, Magistrate Avason Quinlan-Williams and Kevin Ramcharan were appointed as judges.

“The JLSC is responsible for the mess we have found ourselves in,” Ramdeen insisted. “We cannot solve this problem unless those who are responsible for it man-up and take responsibility for what they have done. It is the only way we can move forward.” Ramdeen, at the start of the news conference, expressed grave concerns about the press releases which were issued by the Chief Justice’s Chambers and the Judiciary, on May 18 and 25, respectively, in relation to the convening of a meeting of key stakeholders to discuss the administration of justice in the magistracy.

He regarded both letters as misleading.

Ramdeen noted that while the letter from the CJ’s Chambers said the meeting would have comprised the DPP, the Acting Chief Magistrate, Registrar and a member of the Law Association and Criminal Bar, it made no mention of the fact that six other judges, also were to attend and that a decision on the part-heard matters would have been taken.

“How could the Chief Justice invite persons to convene a summit of key stakeholders to engage in constructive discussion on the administration of justice in the magistracy and then say that bearing in mind that the discussion will focus on criminal justice and then publish this where the CJ is saying that it was convened to determine the way forward for 53 partheard matters left unresolved by former Chief Magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar?” He further claimed Archie had no such powers.

“Where does the Chief Justice get the power to convene a meeting between six judges, three of the Appeal Court, three of the High Court, the Registrar, the magistracy, the Law Association to determine the way forward of matters that are before the court?... The Chief Justice has come up with this idea that you can convene a meeting of persons who he chooses to invite and that body will determine how these matters are going to be dealt with.

“This has never been done before. Where does the Chief Justice get the power to do this.

Where does this body of persons get the power to do this?” Ramdeen also claimed one of the judges, after hearing complaints that putting the 53 matters back into the Judiciary was likely to cause chaos, told Archie: “Let me do it Chief. I could clear it up in one week.” “The administration of justice is at a point that we have never reached before. That a High Court judge will say in a meeting that determines the rights and obligations of 53 people who are presumed innocent - a judge of the High Court would say, ‘Give it to me Chief, I will clear it up in a week.” Ramdeen insisted the 53 accused must have some say in the future of their matters.

Ayers-Caesar is yet to speak publicly on the matter.