Sharma’s three options

President Max Richards has made the correct decision in delaying the appointment of a tribunal to investigate Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma. Any other action would simply have exacerbated this unhappy state of affairs. The pity, though, is that the President was forced into this course by Mr Sharma’s decision to oppose the procedure for investigating the allegations against him. Once Prime Minister Patrick Manning had advised the President to set up the tribunal, Mr Sharma had three options open to him. He could have resigned. He could have publicly welcomed the tribunal, saying he would be glad for the opportunity to clear his name. But he chose the third option: to try to stop the process before it started.

There is an interesting paradox here. If Mr Sharma had taken the second option, the issue would have been more legal than political. But, by choosing the legal path, he has made the issue more a political battle between the CJ and the Prime Minister. Indeed, a main argument offered by the CJ’s lawyers seems far removed from legal niceties — to wit, that the relationship between Mr Sharma and Mr Manning has been “characterised by conflict and discord.” Saying that this is not a strictly legal point does not mean that it is not an effective one. Mr Manning’s own political track record, especially in respect to the Marlene Coudray and Devant Maharaj cases, lends a force to the argument which it would not otherwise have.

Just how much force will be decided by the courts. The fact that Manning also chose the tribunal members, contrary to his rhetoric that the Prime Minister’s only duty was to advise the President to start proceedings, gives weight to a partisan interpretation of this constitutional process. But the court of public opinion will work faster than the courts of law. Already the sub-text of the CJ’s decision to fight his battle in court, rather than before the tribunal, is being read and weighed. The most charitable interpretation is that he thinks the procedure itself is constitutionally flawed and sees it as his legal duty to oppose it.

But this is not how most citizens are likely to interpret Sharma’s action. Instead, they will perceive him as saying that the tribunal’s investigation will not be fair. Whether people agree or disagree with Mr Sharma will depend on their political prejudices. The Opposition United National Congress has already provided a particular frame of reference for this imbroglio. First, that there is a conspiracy to remove the Chief Justice. Second, that this conspiracy is fuelled by racial prejudice. And, third, the removal procedure is also an attempt by the PNM administration to intimidate judges so they will not rule against the Government.

This is the frame that Mr Sharma, wittingly or not, has supported by taking legal action. And let us suppose that the courts rule in his favour. What then? Mr Sharma cannot simply return to business as usual. Every judicial and administrative decision he makes thereafter would be tainted with the suspicion of bias. Let us now suppose that the courts rule against Mr Sharma. He then goes before the tribunal with the demeanour of an accused person who, in effect, tried to flee the scene of the crime. This can only make his case more difficult. In other words, option number three turns out to be a no-win one for both the Chief Justice and the country. By choosing it, Mr Sharma has made an already difficult situation worse.