SHARMA VS MANNING

THE two-day exercise was meant to peruse the affidavits filed in the case last year and to strike out certain paragraphs if necessary, before the trial “tees off.”

Lawyers representing both Chief Justice Sat Sharma and Prime Minister Patrick Manning went prepared before Justice Carlton Best in the Port-of-Spain High Court, with their paragraphs to be struck off. They both won and lost during the process.

When the matter resumed yesterday, Douglas Mendes SC, one of the lawyers representing the Prime Minister, sought to have certain paragraphs struck out from Sharma’s affidavit. He wanted certain things expunged with reference to senior Appeal Court judge Roger Hamel-Smith. Russell Martineau SC, one of the lawyers appearing for Sharma resisted on several occasions.

He told the judge, “my client is seriously affected. His reputation is at stake. Here is a man who has served this country for the past 20 years, who has achieved one of the highest offices. Justice Hamel-Smith is not affected here.”

Although Best assured senior counsel that he was seeking to be fair to everyone, Martineau responded, “my client is facing a very serious situation, he is putting together his case.”

Best added, “I want to get the feel of the claimant (Sharma), how this claimant felt, what was going through his mind that led him to where he was. I will deal with this in a balanced way. This is a claimant whose life is at stake, and on the other hand, an officer who has a duty to do, based on what has transpired.”

Mendes moved to have a paragraph struck out which dealt with a delegation of judges going to see President George Maxwell Richards. He said what was contained in the affidavit was hearsay because Sharma was not there.

Mendes added, “every litigant who comes before the court, whether he is a Chief Justice or a cook, the subject matter is important to them. When it affects your employment, that is your right to fight for your life. What is applicable to a cook is applicable to the Chief Justice.”

He asked, “do we really need to know what happened in the meeting with the President?”

Best responded, “I will not allow this court to be involved in an exercise concerning what transpired with his excellency, the President.”

Martineau assured the court that it was not the intention of his client to have a narration of what transpired at President’s House. Although he struck out certain paragraphs, Best said he still wanted to give Sharma an opportunity to defend himself.

The court then turned to the affidavit of the Prime Minister. At the request of Martineau, the judge struck out a certain paragraph. “This is good jam to give on the hustings. It will have the crowd jumping, not in the courtroom.”

The court turned to the affidavit of Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson and what was said about Justice Stanley John. According to Best, “it is clear that Justice John played a role in this case. He operated as a conduit for a while. He was a person carrying things backward and forward. From what I see, this was an attempt to tar and fetter Justice John. It seemed to me that at one time Mr Henderson and Justice John were good friends. It seems they are not good friends again. But I don’t want to get involved in that. I don’t want to preside over bassa bassa (mayhem).”

After the affidavits were dealt with, the judge asked for a date to start the trial. But the lawyers could not agree. It was then adjourned to July 12 for the lawyers to suggest a date to start the trial. The judge even jokingly suggested the start of the vacation period (August 2).

Sharma is seeking judicial review of the decision of the Prime Minister in 2005 to recommend to the President to appoint a three-member tribunal to investigate a report that he tried to influence the Attorney General and the DPP not to prosecute Dr Vijay Naraynsingh who was charged with the murder of his second wife, Dr Chandra Naraynsingh. Dr Naraynsingh was eventually freed by Deputy Chief Magistrate Mark Wellington in the San Fernando Magistrates’ Court.