|
Chief
Justice Satnarine Sharma
By
Jada Loutoo
Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma has fired a full-scale legal
attack against Prime Minister Patrick Manning to block the
Government’s investigation of his actions in office.
He has claimed that relations between himself and the PM were
characterised by conflict and discord since his appointment.
In a late move yesterday afternoon, Sharma filed an application
in the Port-of-Spain High Court seeking a review of Manning’s
decision to advise President George Maxwell Richards to set
up a tribunal to investigate whether he should be removed
from office.
Manning announced his decision to do so on April 1, during
an address to the Lower House, saying his decision was not
a condemnation of the CJ or a finding of guilt against him.
He said then that the names of the members of the tribunal
would be announced soon.
Manning has been named as the only respondent in Sharma’s
lawsuit and affidavits have been filed by both Sharma and
Appeal Court Justice Stanley John on the CJ’s behalf.
Sharma is seeking a stay of all action or proceedings that
may be taken consequently and wants a stay of implementation
of the decisions and representations, pending hearing of his
application for judicial review.
He also wants the PM’s decisions quashed, accusing him
of acting improperly.
The CJ has hit back at the Prime Minister, claiming in documents
filed that the complaint against him was not initiated by
either Attorney General John Jeremie or DPP Geoffrey Henderson
but on the initiative and direction of the PM and occurred
during the early days of December 2004.
Sharma accused the PM of inviting him to a meeting in January,
luring him into a discussion on his meeting with the AG and
DPP, without telling him of his intentions under Section 137
(3) of the Constitution.
Section 137 (3) outlines the procedure for setting up a tribunal
to investigate the removal of the Chief Justice, once the
Prime Minister advises the President to do so.
Leave is yet to be granted to the embattled CJ, who, in a
radio advertisement, has been called on to resign from office
during the tribunal’s investigations.
Lawyers representing him are seeking to get an early court
date, the Guardian was informed.
Sharma, who is facing possible impeachment following allegations
involving the preliminary inquiry into the murder of Dr Chandra
Naraynsingh, has claimed that the exposure to public scrutiny
and commentary had created a division of public opinion for
and against the removal of the CJ.
It was wrong for the PM to make representation to the President
and Manning should have declined from doing so, Sharma claimed,
adding that this gave him a right to take legal action.
In his lawsuit, Sharma said an attempt to restrict private
conversations among himself, the AG and DPP would be socially
and professionally impractical and an unconstitutional curtailment
of their rights to freedom of expression.
He called into question Manning’s actions in requesting
statements from himself, the AG, DPP and High Court judge
Mark Mohammed, saying it was unreasonable and improper.
The CJ said nothing in these statements justified Manning
in advising the President to set up a tribunal and such a
court was damaging to his status, credibility and career.
It was also damaging to the administration of justice, he
said.
Sharma said his conversations with these men were private
and concerned the administration of justice and the possibility
that there was impropriety in the murder charge against Dr
Vijay Naraynsingh.
Naraynsingh was charged with his former wife’s murder
but was discharged at the San Fernando Magistrate’s Court
on March 4.
He said his conversation with Jeremie and Henderson did not
generate any complaint from either of them and claimed Manning’s
action to investigate was based on bias.
Sharma, who is T&T’s seventh CJ having succeeded
Michael de la Bastide in July 2002, is seeking damages for
the breach of his fundamental rights of protection of the
law and freedom of thought and expression.
He is already seeking to pre-empt any possible arguments of
delay and/or an alternative form of redress open to him, saying
he has none.
Sharma says he is entitled to his application as CJ and chairman
of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.
If the tribunal finds the allegations against Sharma are worthy
of further scrutiny, a recommendation is then made to the
President on whether he should refer the question of the removal
of the CJ from office to the Privy Council.
Lawyers advising Sharma are Tajmool Hosein, QC, Fenton Ramsahoye,
QC, Frank Solomon, SC, Russell Martineau, SC, Fyard Hosein,
SC, Desmond Allum, SC, Devesh Maharaj and Rajiv Persad.
They are being instructed by attorney Dennis Gurley, of JD
Sellier and Co.
|
