Manning writes Sharma

PRIME MINISTER Patrick Manning has written to Chief Justice Sat Sharma informing him of complaints made by Attorney General John Jeremie and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Geoffrey Henderson regarding his performance as head of the judiciary. Reliable sources told Sunday Newsday that Manning has asked Sharma to respond to the complaints/allegations made by the two officials. However, Sharma is yet to respond although he has consulted with two eminent attorneys, one being Russell Martineau SC, President of the Law Association. Senior Counsel Tajmool Hosein is said to be the other attorney but this could not be confirmed yesterday.

When contacted last week Sharma said he had no comment. Contacted again yesterday he repeated that he had nothing to say. Manning awaits the response from the Chief Justice to determine whether there are any grounds to initiate proceedings that could lead to Sharma’s removal from office.  Although Jeremie is one of the persons who submitted reports to Manning, he told the Senate on Tuesday that it was “scandalous and irresponsible” of the Opposition UNC to suggest that Government was considering removing the Chief Justice. Government he said could not remove a Chief Justice. Events began to unfold last year when some judges reportedly complained about the Chief Justice. Following this,  the Chief Justice reportedly wrote disciplinary letters to two High Court judges, but in light of the complaints an internal inquiry was said to have been conducted by  Appeal Court Judges Roger Hamel-Smith and Rolston Nelson, now a judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). They made several recommendations, including establishing new rules for the assigning of judges to cases.

Reports revealed that this was not accepted by CJ Sharma. As a result, Justice Hamel-Smith, who has acted as Chief Justice on numerous occasions, is reported to have visited President George Maxwell Richards informing him of the situation and presenting him with a copy of the report of the internal inquiry. That was the first matter. The second matter has to do with a case now before the courts. The DPP has submitted a report to the Prime Minister regarding interaction he  had with the Chief Justice dating back to December 2004. The Attorney General, in his report, admitted he was present at one meeting between the Chief Justice and the DPP. High Court Judge, Mark Mohammed, was said to have also been present at one of the meetings. The reports of the Attorney General and the DPP were then submitted to the Prime Minister.

Sources said the Prime Minister accepted legal advice before writing to the Chief Justice informing him of the complaints and asking for a response. The Prime Minister, according to sources, is giving the Chief Justice the right to be heard, not wanting to make the same mistakes which the Judicial and Legal Service Commission made in September 1990 when it made a representation to then President Noor Hassanali to take action on High Court Judge Richard Crane. That matter finally ended at the Privy Council with the State having to pay heavy damages to Crane. The Constitution spells out the manner in which disciplinary action can be taken against a Chief Justice or a judge. The rules as they relate to a Chief Justice are even stronger and call for the setting up of a tribunal by the President.

With respect to a judge, Section 137 (1) of the Constitution states: A judge may be removed from office only for inability to perform his functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misbehaviour, and shall not be so moved except in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) A judge shall be removed from office by the President where the question of removal of that judge has been referred by the president to the Judicial Committee and the Judicial Committee has advised the President that the judge ought to be removed from office for such inability or for misbehaviour.
(3) Where the Prime Minister, in the case of the Chief Justice, or the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, in the case of a judge other than the Chief Justice, represents to the president that the question of removing a judge under this section ought to be investigated, then the President shall appoint a tribunal selected by the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister in the case of the Chief Justice, or the Prime Minister after consultation with the Commission in the case of a judge.

Apart from the denial in the Senate by Jeremie, no Government official has made any statement on the matter. But sources said Sharma could be the subject of investigation,  because of decisions he made as head of the judges. Judges, when interviewed by Sunday Newsday, said the Chief Justice was criticised for certain cases such as the Gypsy and Chaitan constitutional case, a case against former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday, and the transfer of a magistrate.

Sources said the Chief Justice took the initiative to have certain cases fast-tracked because of the public interest in them. These included the Lance Small case, the Bakr trial, and the Cropper murder case. The Chief Justice, according to sources, had also called in two Judges to address them on complaints from the Law Association that their judgments remain outstanding after five and six years.