CJ’S SMALL STEP

That confidence has been lowered, at least in certain quarters, ever since Mr Sharma was accused of interference in the Vijay Naraynsingh case.

But, even those citizens who, on the basis of bias rather than evidence, had already formed an opinion on Mr Sharma’s guilt or innocence, still retained confidence in the judiciary as a whole. However, that remnant was battered last week when police officers were prevented from arresting Mr Sharma.

Even if the police action was misguided, the presence of Appeal Court judge Stanley John at Mr Sharma’s official home, and the exclusive Newsday report which revealed a series of phone calls made from Mr Sharma’s residence to Justice Judith Jones, confirmed the long-held public perception that the law does not operate equally for all citizens.

While there can be no doubt that it should not be easy to remove a Chief Justice from his post, it is also important that citizens have confidence that no one is above the law.

In his statement, Mr Sharma acknowledges this, saying, “The Chief Justice is certainly not asserting that he is above the criminal law or that he is immune to the court’s processes but rather that in the particular facts of this case there has been an abuse of power and an abuse of process by the Executive branch of government for the sole purpose of effecting his removal from office.”

But whether this is so or not will have to be decided by a tribunal, as mandated by the Constitution.

However, because of the legal route taken by Mr Sharma, the local court first has to determine other matters, and that is why Mr Sharma cannot exercise his judicial functions as long as there is a criminal charge against him. And, even in respect to his administrative duties, Mr Sharma made sure to emphasise that he is not rostering judges in either the High Court or the Appeal Court. And, while there are some who will believe that this is mere misdirection, it is a fact that the judges as a body acted promptly in responding to an unsigned statement issued last Sunday, related to the phone calls from the CJ’s residence, which asserted that only attorney Russell Martineau and Court Registrar Evelyn Peterson called Justice Jones.

That initial statement was headed “The Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago,” but all judges had not been consulted and so a second, modified statement admitted that the statement did not represent a consensus, but only the agreement of the parties who were at the CJ’s home on the night.

The inference is that the judges of Trinidad and Tobago are still zealous about guarding their independence. This is all to the good.

It is only a pity that Mr Sharma waited so long to take this step, and indeed did so the very day after President George Maxwell Richards made an address to the nation promising to take “immediate action” to end the imbroglio.

Citizens can hope that the CJ did indeed stop performing judicial functions, as his statement asserts, because he is “mindful of the critical importance of public confidence in the administration of justice.”

We further hope, in the same spirit, that the CJ will welcome and facilitate the process by which he can have his day before a constitutionally appointed tribunal which will determine whether the charges against him have any merit or not.