Unlawful swearing-in?

THE CONCERN expressed by the Council of the Law Association should alert the Government into proceeding very carefully with respect to establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice. Trinidad and Tobago would become the laughing stock of the region if the measures we take to set the Court in motion were themselves not properly sanctioned and proved later on to be illegal. Indeed, we expect that the Government would now thoroughly review Thursday's official swearing-in of members of the Regional Judicial and Legal Service Commission which the Law Association has described as unlawful.

The reason seems logical enough. According to the Association, the swearing-in should not have been performed because there is no legislation in TT which authorises the country's Chief Justice to swear in members of the regional commission. In fact, no legislation has been passed in TT recognising the proposed existence of the Commission. In light of this opinion, we are at a loss to understand the explanation given by Attorney General Glenda Morean who apparently feels there is no legal problem because, as she says, the occssion was "purely ceremonial". Now what does that really mean? Can an official ceremony like that be above the law? Is it not unlawful because it is ceremonial? And if the Chief Justice does not have the authority to perform such a function, is it not unlawful if he does? Indeed, if the Commission itself has no locus standi it seems somewhat ludicrous to be appointing members to it.

Our understanding is that an agreement has been forged and signed by regional governments to have the court established but this agreement can only become effective in each participating country when it passes the enabling legislation. The fact is that the government of Trinidad and Tobago is yet to bring the necessary CCJ legislation to parliament and, as a result, it seems to us improperly precipitate for TT to be treating the RJLSC as legally established officially appointing members to it. In this context, we are also baffled by the response of Chief Justice Sat Sharma who absolves himself from participating in this dubious exercise by describing himself as "merely the conduit" to effect the swearing in. We wonder whether Mr Sharma would accept that "conduit" excuse from an accused person charged with carrying out an assassination contract? M'Lud, don't blame me, I was just the conduit!

To make this whole scenario even more ludicrous, we now have the UNC piously declaring that TT is not ready for the CCJ. Unfortunately that belated view may well spell the doom of the relevant legislation which would need a special majority and, therefore, the support of the Opposition. But that stand should not really surprise us having regard to the declared policy of the UNC to place constitution reform above any other measure, even if it means retarding the progress of the country and, indeed, embarrassing the country within the region and to the rest of the world. The UNC have now discovered that removal of the Privy Council would constitute "a profound and fundamental rearrangement of the structure of our judicial system" and may have serious consequences which have to be considered and studied. This is the same UNC which, when it was in government was outraged by the Law Lords' attempts to rewrite our laws with respect to hanging and even proposed to withdraw murder appeals to the Privy Council. In any case, the need now to conduct our own legal affairs, to realise our full sovereignty seems totally lost on the UNC still searching to find itself.