New lawsuit for JLSC

Former United National Congress senator Devant Maharaj is adamant that the JLSC is not properly constituted and today intends to file a claim seeking the court’s interpretation of relevant sections of the Constitution which relates to its composition .

He is seeking a declaration that retired judge Humphrey Stollmeyer’s appointment is unconstitutional, illegal and invalid .

According to Maharaj, he has been following the controversy surrounding the recent judicial appointments of the JLSC which culminated in the Law Association’s passage of a motion of no confidence in the chief justice and the members of the JLSC, calling on them to resign .

“Having regard to the critical constitutional role and function of the JLSC, it is imperative that its membership is properly appointed in accordance with the supreme law that created it,” he said in his lawsuit .

Maharaj on May 8 issued a pre action protocol letter seeking answers to several questions relating to the composition of the JLSC, namely whether a person over the age of 65 was eligible or qualified to serve as a member; whether the JLSC was properly constituted at the time with four instead of five members; whether persons with legal qualifications other than retired judges was catered for by section 110(3)(a) and whether there should be representation from the bar .

On May 9, attorney Ernest Koylass, SC, was appointed to the JLSC and the body, on May 18, conceded that with four members it fell short by one as contemplated by section 110, but that this was rectified by Koylass’ appointment .

It also noted that section 110 permitted the appointment of retired judges Roger Hamel-Smith and Humphrey Stollmeyer and that they were “aptly qualified to so serve.” The other members of the JLSC are Archie as chairman, and head of the Public Service Commission Maureen Manchouk .

In its response to Maharaj’s attorney Anand Ramlogan, SC, the JLSC also noted that there was no discernible prohibition placed by the Constitution on a former judge filling one of the posts since it provides for one of the two members with legal qualifications to not be in active practice .

“I disagree with the JLSC’s interpretation and remain of the view that Justice Stollmeyer cannot be properly and lawfully appointed to serve as a member of the JLSC. It is plain to me that on a correct reading (of the Constitution) the category of persons targeted are members of the legal profession who were practitioners and one who is still a practitioner and not retired judges,” Maharaj said .

He also provided a history of the JLSC’s composition, dating back to 2005, which showed that two retired judges and one legal practitioner have sat on the commission .

Maharaj said as of October 2015, there would have been three retired judges on the JLSC until the departure of retired judge Annestine Sealy, leaving four members, two of whom were retired judges .

He is seeking an early hearing in order to guide the President, Chief Justice and other state functionaries on the issue of appointment of members to the JLSC .