The CJ’s question

IN OPENING the new law term on Tuesday, Chief Justice Sat Sharma asked the question: Who is to speak in Cabinet on behalf of the Judiciary? Looked at from the viewpoint of conventional practice, the question itself appears curious since this is one of the functions which the Attorney General has always performed, given the fact that the Constitution imparts to that office responsibility for the administration of legal affairs in Trinidad and Tobago. Mr Sharma’s question, however, seems to stem from an apparent dissatisfaction over this traditional arrangement, particularly since he sees the political nature of the AG’s office as not befitting such a function.
 
The CJ contends that the AG’s office “is a purely political one and it is not unreasonable to expect matters are firstly viewed in the political context. Progress and improvement in the Judiciary depend to a large extent on the personality of the Attorney General and his or her ability to influence or persuade other Cabinet members.” He adds: “It is not acceptable to have the interest of the Judiciary dependent on the idiosyncratic behaviour of the Attorney General. There must be found a more effective way to have the problems of the Judiciary assessed and canvassed in the Cabinet by someone who is objective and independent. I mean no disrespect or discourtesy to the present Attorney General or any of her predecessors. This, however, might be a matter of Constitutional reform.”
 
In our view, Mr Sharma’s argument is purely theoretical and has little or no basis in the practical realities of governmental administration and, particularly, of the AG’s functions and responsibilities. To begin with, it is not sufficient for him to say, look the AG is a politician and therefore she is not qualified to speak for the independent Judiciary in Cabinet. He provides no proof to support this claim, he offers no instance in which the AG misrepresented or inadequately argued the case for the Judiciary before the Cabinet. Most crucially, however, the administration of justice is the constitutional responsibility of the AG which involves her in every aspect of the judicial arm of the State and makes her clearly the only fit and proper person to speak for the Judiciary not only in the Cabinet but also in Parliament.

There is no need to remind the Chief Justice that, in response to his request for more judges, it was the AG who went before Parliament and piloted the Amendment to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to have three more judges appointed. In this particular issue, it may also be useful for the CJ to consider the role and functions of the Lord Chancellor in England who happens to be not only a member of Mr Blair’s Labour Cabinet but also Head of the Judiciary and Head of the House of Lords. However strange this arrangement may seem to us, it would almost be sacrilegious for anyone to argue that because he is a politician the Lord Chancellor is unfit to head the Judiciary in Britain. It is true that the world of politics does not enjoy an admirable reputation, but it would be wrong to assume that by entering and serving in it persons lose their capacity to be fair and even-handed. We do not see the “idiosyncratic behaviour” of the Attorney General as any barrier to improvement of the Judiciary and our hope is that Mr Sharma and Mrs Morean-Phillips will be able to work cooperatively and amicably in the interest of the administration of justice.