anand@tstt.net.tt

http://www.anandramlogan.com

Mc Nicolls should resign

Before we even begin to analyse the Mustill Report, we should all be concerned about the serious breach in security that led to the premature leaking of the report to the media before it was officially delivered to the President.

The headline “Sharma spared,” instead of “Sharma cleared,” set the psychological state of mind for digestion of the report in a way that was clearly favourable to the Government.

You only “spare” someone if he is guilty as charged, but deserves a chance. In local parlance, “yuh get ketch with yuh pants down, but we giving yuh ah chance.”

Convenient politics, it would appear, continues to drive and influence this matter, as the innuendo was mischievously clear.

The issue at the heart of the enquiry was, however, whether the State had made out its case of misconduct against Sharma. This it clearly failed to do.

In short, the head of the judiciary was removed from office on the basis of a case that was not made out.

The report was balanced and predictable. Sharma is on his way out. He has less than six weeks until he retires. The real issue now is the confirmation by tribunal of the crass stupidity of the Chief Magistrate, whose shenanigans caused this entire fiasco.

Justice Peter Jamadar is scheduled to deliver judgment in Mc Nicolls’ judicial review case, whereby he is attempting to halt belated disciplinary action taken against him by the JLSC, in accordance with the advice of Justice Sebastien Ventour.

Let’s hope the wait is not too long.

In my view, Mc Nicolls should be suspended, if he does not resign. Millions of dollars have been wasted because of his inexplicable refusal to testify on behalf of the prosecution in the criminal case against Sharma.

He was the instigator and everything depended on him. He knew this, and remained silent while the Government was fighting all the way to the Privy Council for the right to prosecute the CJ in the criminal courts.

Suddenly, at the 11th hour, he flip-flopped and refused to testify, saying he never intended to do so in any criminal trial.

This is what the tribunal said about his conduct:

“Again, and hardly least, there was the remarkable story of the Chief Justice’s trial. There is no explanation of the Chief Magistrate’s last-minute change of heart that can leave his credibility untouched.

“(And, indeed, none was offered by him in his oral evidence before the tribunal). Either he was in the grip of conspirators who, for some reason, wanted to have the behaviour of the Chief Justice examined by an enquiry, rather than in a criminal court, or at least wanted him to be removed from office without being in peril of prison.

“Or, the Chief Magistrate really believed in the opinion that his statements were in some way his property, to be used by the organs of State only in a way of which he approved—an extraordinary misconception for an experienced magistrate.

“Either alternative raises more questions than it solves. There is also the curious manner in which the matter was handled in court. But whatever the true state of affairs, this episode seriously shakes the confidence which we can place in the Chief Magistrate’s testimony.”

In short, the man is either too daft to be the country’s Chief Magistrate, or lacks the credibility to inspire public confidence in the administration of justice and must be removed from office.

The tribunal also criticised Sharma’s conduct on many fronts, and rightly opined that “All these combined with the impression gained during his oral evidence to suggest a propensity to speak and write more freely than was wise,” the tribunal said, “without the balanced sensitivity and distance which should be the hallmarks of a senior judge.”

In agreeing with the criticisms made about Sharma’s conduct, I cannot help but highlight his honesty about the matters that prompted the adverse comments.

Sharma could have just as easily have lied about ever having a jovial chat about Panday’s case with prosecutor Timothy Cassel over drinks in the first class section, or ever raising the “Hindu wife” topic with Mc Nicolls or Cassel.

It would have been their word against his, as no one else was around to listen to these conversations. Instead, he chose to admit having said these things and let the chips fall where they must.

By admitting he said these things, Sharma clearly felt he had done nothing wrong. His conscience was clear that he did not try to influence Mc Nicolls, and the stance seemed to be that “the truth shall set me free.”

Perhaps, it has, but it does highlight idiosyncratic behaviour that Sharma should have known was wrong. Hats off to Mustill and Co for a good report!

Web site: http://www.anandramlogan.com/