Judge refuses to hear UNC’s case against CCJ

A HIGH COURT judge yesterday refused to deem the case filed last week by the Opposition United National Congress, against the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), important enough to be heard during the court’s vacation period. Madame Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee declared in the San Fernando High Court, “Let my words be few, the application to deem the matter fit to be heard during the vacation, is refused.” UNC MP for Fyzabad Chandresh Sharma filed a judicial review application on Friday last, to have a judge declare that Chief Justice Sat Sharma’s swearing-in, last Wednesday, of two members of the Regional Judicial and Legal Service Commission (RJLSC), was unconstitutional. Through Attorney Anand Ramlogan, Sharma contended that the treaty between Caricom member countries establishing the CCJ cannot be acted upon by the Chief Justice, unless by an Act of Parliament. The treaty must be incorporated into the domestic laws of Trinidad and Tobago.

In an unprecedented move yesterday, the Attorney General’s department put in an appearance and resisted Ramlogan’s application for the court to deem the matter urgent for a vacation hearing. State Attorney Kerwyn Garcia appeared for the AG. The function of the RJLSC is to appoint the judges to the CCJ. The rest of the commission’s members are to be sworn in by the Chief Justices of respective member countries. Ramlogan argued that the commissioners’ swearing-in undermined Parliamentary democracy because a treaty could not give power for the CJ or the executive to so act. Ramlogan stated, “No where in the treaty, empowers the CJ to swear in commissioners.” But Madame Justice Rajnauth-Lee asked, “Do you know whether they have been appointed by letters?” Ramlogan answered that if they had been, by virtue of the treaty, the legality and unconstitutionality of it is triggered simply because the treaty was yet to be incorporated into local domestic law. Madame Justice Rajnauth-Lee again asked whether a swearing-in was separate and apart from an appointment. Ramlogan said that whichever came first, was merely an academic exercise.

Garcia agreed that the importance of the matter was established, but not its urgency. The State attorney submitted however, that the applicant (Sharma), had not presented evidence to establish that any appointment was made of the commissioners for which the court could review. Garcia further submitted that in the absence of such evidence, there was nothing the court could do. Saying that the court could not make a dollar out of  50 cents, Garcia told Madame Justice Rajnauth-Lee that there was no affidavit evidence to show urgency such as to move the court to bring forward the matter before the opening of the law term in September. After hearing Ramlogan’s reply, Madame Justice Rajnauth-Lee immediately ruled that she was refusing the application. The judge fixed the matter for mention on September 18, the day after the opening of the new law term. But Ramlogan requested leave to appeal and was granted. Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma was present in court yesterday for the hearing.