NO FUNDS FOR CJ’S LEGAL BILLS

In a letter to Sharma’s attorney, Dennis A Gurley, dated August 7, Jeremie also pointed out that it was Sharma who of his own free will, “elected” to pursue litigation against the State. “It is only as a result of that choice (to embark on more litigation) that your client has incurred further legal expenses,” Jeremie stated.

“Your client has launched yet another round of litigation. So far this litigation has met with no success.

With no end in sight it is difficult to determine the amount one would have to place in such a pre-emptive litigation fund,” Jeremie stated.

Jeremie was responding to a letter (dated July 28) written to the Deputy Solicitor General and copied to him (Jeremie) in which Sharma’s attorneys had asked the State to set up “a reasonable fund” for the Chief Justice’s legal fees and expenses “(already) incurred and to be incurred”.

Jeremie pointed out that at every step of the way the litigant apparently sought to frustrate a quick resolution which could have reduced the time and costs of litigation. “Your client has not seen it fit to hasten the resolution of any of the matters which he himself has instituted, he having suggested that the judge assigned to hear the matter should recuse himself and another judge be assigned; he also having taken some three months to file his affidavit in response to those filed on behalf of the respondent along with a notice to amend his case to allege for the first time bias on the part of a brother Justice of Appeal, all of which served to delay the hearing of this matter,” Jeremie said.

The AG added he had been informed by the respondent in the first matter (ie Prime Minister) that despite attempts by his legal team to have the matter completed by the end of the 2005/6 law term, those attempts were “ vigorously opposed” by the CJ’s legal team who preferred a date in October 2006”.

Responding to the assertion in the letter written by Sharma’s attorneys that the legal costs of all those “on the other side”, were being borne by the State, Jeremie said there was no comparision between Sharma’s “voluntary” legal excursions and someone who is “forced to defend himself in the discharge of official functions by the institution of consistent and bona fide legal proceedings against him”.

The Attorney General also stated that Sharma’s claim for his legal expenses to be borne by the State, could not be justified on the ground of his alleged “impecuniousity” (poverty).

“In the circumstances there can be no justifiable principle on which this litigation fund can be established. This cannot be right. I cannot place this matter before the Cabinet of this country,” Jeremie concluded.

The CJ who has filed numerous legal suits in his battle against the State has been ordered recently to pay costs by the Appeal Court.

The letter written by the CJ’s attorneys claimed that Sharma was “severely disadvantaged in the lawful pursuit of the litigation necessary to vindicate him and to protect and defend his office.”