Any News on the Privy Council's Ruling?

[Dr. Rat]

For those at home, any word?

[Patterson]

they ruled against him............so the police free to arrest him at any time

[WestCoast]

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news1.html

[Andre]

pathetic that the final decisions related to the trini judiciary still made in england.

so much for independence.

so what this man do anyhow?

[Jah Gol]

pathetic that the final decisions related to the trini judiciary still made in england.

so much for independence.

so what this man do anyhow?

The State has charged that the CJ perverted the course of justice by trying to influence the Panday case. The CJ has countered by claiming that the AG , PM and Chief Magistrate McNicolls conspired against him for political reasons.

A series of injuctions were made by Judith Jones that prevented the CJ from being arrested. The injunction was overturned by the appeal court.  The CJ then filed for judicial review with the Privy Council on the matter.

The ruling simply says that the CJ can be arrested and that any allegation of politcal interference should be meet the scrutiny of the court and no through judicial review.

Any lawyers on the forum tell me if I'm reading it correctly.

[Dr. Rat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2006/11/061130_sharmacase.shtml

[Dr. Rat]

pathetic that the final decisions related to the trini judiciary still made in england.

so much for independence.

so what this man do anyhow?

The State has charged that the CJ perverted the course of justice by trying to influence the Panday case. The CJ has countered by claiming that the AG , PM and Chief Magistrate McNicolls conspired against him for political reasons.

A series of injuctions were made by Judith Jones that prevented the CJ from being arrested. The injunction was overturned by the appeal court.  The CJ then filed for judicial review with the Privy Council on the matter.

The ruling simply says that the CJ can be arrested and that any allegation of politcal interference should be meet the scrutiny of the court and no through judicial review.

Any lawyers on the forum tell me if I'm reading it correctly.

Time to go.

[dcs]

The case came up today and was thrown out.
McNicolls showed up to court and said he not testifying.

This was after lunch.

What now?
Manning had initiate impeachment proceedings a few days ago but who knows how this affects that.

steupse

[Mr Fix-it]

The case came up today and was thrown out.
McNicolls showed up to court and said he not testifying.

This was after lunch.

What now?
Manning had initiate impeachment proceedings a few days ago but who knows how this affects that.

steupse

Ah doh understand dat one??  AH thought yu have to answer questions once yu get called to court....So ah could jus go into court and say ah nut answering anything or is it jus when yu have Gov't backing yu could get away wid dat kinda slackness?

[Organic]

The case came up today and was thrown out.
McNicolls showed up to court and said he not testifying.

This was after lunch.

What now?
Manning had initiate impeachment proceedings a few days ago but who knows how this affects that.

steupse

Ah doh understand dat one??  AH thought yu have to answer questions once yu get called to court....So ah could jus go into court and say ah nut answering anything or is it jus when yu have Gov't backing yu could get away wid dat kinda slackness?

to much friggin fren fren and money bacanal in ttrini oui.
they does say how people doh come and testify dais y so much crininals walk.
but look at that big friggin justice..wah kinda shit is that.
steupssssssss
if it was some poor man they woulda sue he ass or find him in contenpt or somin...but lall ah dem is padna padna

[Mr Fix-it]

The case came up today and was thrown out.
McNicolls showed up to court and said he not testifying.

This was after lunch.

What now?
Manning had initiate impeachment proceedings a few days ago but who knows how this affects that.

steupse

Ah doh understand dat one??  AH thought yu have to answer questions once yu get called to court....So ah could jus go into court and say ah nut answering anything or is it jus when yu have Gov't backing yu could get away wid dat kinda slackness?

to much friggin fren fren and money bacanal in ttrini oui.
they does say how people doh come and testify dais y so much crininals walk.
but look at that big friggin justice..wah kinda shit is that.
steupssssssss
if it was some poor man they woulda sue he ass or find him in contenpt or somin...but lall ah dem is padna padna

Ah kinda fu*in vex bout that sh*t.........So de judge jus have to smoke dat in dey pipe so.....So McNicolls not sleeping in jail tonight?

And alyu telling me de PNM not fu*kin up we country?

[dcs]

I not sure he took teh stand but the report I heard describe the whole thing and McNicolls was definitely around the court cuz he and Sharma didn't acknowledge each other.

I think the state drop the case after McNicolls told them he had no further evidence to submit.

Papers tomorrow go have everything but the journalist and them must be scratching they head trying to figure out what the hell going on.

[Mr Fix-it]

So what next???

[truetrini]

Mc Nichols is correct NOT to testify.  It would have set a very bad precedent.  manning needs to back off and let Sharma finish his time and move on.

Simple.

Dey shoulda never charge Panday with dat lack of disclosure shit either.

But politics is bad mind thing..and allyuh know I hate Panday!

[zuluwarrior]

THE Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha is calling for the immediate resignation of Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls and the reinstatement of Satnarine Sharma as Chief Justice.

Sat Maharaj, secretary general, yesterday slammed Mc Nicolls’ decision to back out at the eleventh hour from testifying in the case against Sharma.

Maharaj told the Guardian, “Mc Nicolls has demonstrated as a judicial officer that he is not fit to hold high office. If he lays a complaint against the CJ and swore an affidavit and refuses to be cross-examined and forcing the case to be dismissed then I consider him no longer fit to hold high office.”

Mc Nicolls, the main witness in the perverting the course of public justice case against Sharma, declined to testify when the matter came up in the Port-of-Spain Magistrates Court on Monday.

Maharaj said it was the SDMS who had gone to President George Maxwell Richards at the commencement of the case demanding that it be stopped because files had been leaked to the media.

He said: “It is only after we objected they started taking action to remove him.”

A fiery Maharaj also demanded that all matters against the Chief Justice be withdrawn.

Maharaj said the SDMS was calling on the President to ignore any advice from the Prime Minister to set up a special tribunal to examine the behaviour of the Chief Justice.

He said: “The behaviour of the Trinidadian politicians is reminiscent of Mugabe in Zimbabwe when Mugabe unilaterally fired the CJ of that country. The people of T&T must jealously guard the independence of the judiciary to ensure our democracy remains and that we have independent access to the courts of law.” shouldnt Micollis be charged for contemp , or be charged for wasting the court time . these people jus wasting tax payerz money with they comedy .why dey jus doh call sprangalang to try the case?

[dcs]

Trinidad & Tobago Newsday
INSIDE INFORMATION

By Andre Bagoo Wednesday, March 7 2007

:

The doors of the Port-of-Spain Eighth Magistrates’ Court, over which the Chief Magistrate normally presides, were locked shut yesterday as McNicolls issued a statement to the press saying “In or about the 13th February, 2007, I wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) pointing to the existence of parallel proceedings and making the point that as a judicial officer I remained willing, eager and able to give evidence in the proper forum in relation to the Sharma matter. The Director never responded to that matter.”

However, it was widely reported by the press and subsequently confirmed by legal sources that the Prime Minister only wrote to Sharma on February 21, informing him of his decision to initiate proceedings under Section 137 of the Constitution.

This, then, according to Daly raises the issue of how Mc Nicolls could have known about the Prime Minister’s initiation of the civil proceedings before Sharma himself or before the proceedings began.

:

[zuluwarrior]

                                                      UNC Calls for MC Nicolls                                                                           

Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar is flanked by party members Dr Tim Gopeesingh, Jack Warner and Vasant Bharath during yesterday’s press conference at the Office of the Leader of Opposition, Port-of- Spain.


By Shaliza Hassanali

THE Opposition UNC is preparing and filing a motion of censure in Parliament against Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls, to have him removed from office.

Leader of the Opposition Kamla Persad-Bissessar said yesterday the motion of censure was similar to that of a motion of no confidence, which could be filed on any government minister to have him/her removed from official duties.

The UNC also plans to call on President George Maxwell Richards for a full public inquiry into Sat Sharma’s case.

If the Prime Minister refuses the public inquiry, the UNC says it will do what is necessary to force his hand.

We will ensure that there is a national clamour against this. This matter must be fully ventilated in public,” stated UNC deputy chairman Vasant Bharath.

The announcement was made during a press conference at the office of the Leader of Opposition.

The motion of censure was one of several issues raised by the UNC.

Among the concerns aired were conflicting stories involving the Prime Minister, the DPP and the Chief Magistrate, after the State dropped its case against Sharma on Monday.

The UNC also slammed the AG for washing his hands off the ongoing matter.

Persad-Bissessar said Mc Nicolls should step down, because the public no longer had confidence in him to adjudicate court matters, “since he has brought his office into disrepute.”

She said the Chief Magistrate had already set a bad example by refusing to testify in court.

He has broken a basic foundation of our adversarial justice system, which is: witnesses must be compelled to testify. And he has done that with the full backing of the political directorate.”

Persad-Bissessar said once again the Prime Minister had interfered in matters that were not of his concern, and “that he’s stepping out of his bounds.

He is always in breach of the separation of powers,” she added.

Bharath also called on the DPP to take the necessary steps to charge Mc Nicolls with wasting police time and contempt of court, stating that “no one is above the law.”

Bharath also advised the Prime Minister to restrain himself if he intended to pursue with impeachment proceedings against the CJ.

Meanwhile, political leader of the Congress of the People Winston Dookeran called on the Judicial Services Commission yesterday to launch a full-scale investigation into the conduct of Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls.

Dookeran said the investigation was necessary, since there was a creeping threat to the fundamental principle of the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, and that the threat had now galloped into an all-out and complete abuse of power by the Government.

In a press release yesterday, Dookeran said the abuse of power and process by the State would remain the legacy of the PNM administration.

He said on numerous occasions Government had overstepped its bounds of separation of powers.

Government has embarked on a campaign to hound and harass the highest judicial officer in the land. Such actions have clearly disregarded the basic principles of our democracy.”

Dookeran said the person most culpable in this entire affair was Prime Minister Patrick Manning, and that his actions were enough to warrant a motion of no confidence against him, unless there was a clear explanation as the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the case against the CJ.

The PM has engaged both the CJ and the DPP in a manner that is clearly outside his power and authority .”   jus imagine these  are the  politrickshons who suppose to be working for the people ,ah wonder if they doz solve any problems? when will it end . wa ah thing.
 

 
 
 

[dcs]

McNicolls going to testify in the impeachment ting if Manning go through with it.

That is probably what he was holding out for...whether through communication with the government or his own assessment of which he preferred.

If they go the impeachment route...if Sharma appeal he will remain suspended until the end of his term...or something so.  Which would mean Manning get his way without there being any closure or ruling on who was right/wrong.

Is that good or bad?

[Dr. Rat]

McNicolls going to testify in the impeachment ting if Manning go through with it.

That is probably what he was holding out for...whether through communication with the government or his own assessment of which he preferred.

If they go the impeachment route...if Sharma appeal he will remain suspended until the end of his term...or something so. Which would mean Manning get his way without there being any closure or ruling on who was right/wrong.

Is that good or bad?

This is great news!

[dcs]

Trinidad & Tobago Newsday
Saturday, March 10 2007
Caught in the slips


AT Thursday’s post-Cabinet news briefing, Prime Minister Patrick Manning insisted that the Government “gave no instruction or direction” to the DPP about discontinuing the trial of Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma. That denial was in response to Newsday’s exclusive report, carried that same Thursday, that the Government had tried to get the DPP to stop criminal proceedings.

No spokesperson for the DPP’s office has since denied the accuracy of this newspaper’s report. So, in addition to all the other brouhahas, citizens now have to decide if the Prime Minister is misleading the public.

There is a popular perception that politicians lie, but this is not so. It is more often the case that, rather than lying outright, politicians tend to choose their words carefully.

So, in this instance, we note that Mr Manning has couched his denial in terms of officialdom – saying that no “instruction or direction” was given. But this is not the same as saying that no pressure was brought to bear, which is what sources at the DPP’s office have told Newsday. It is entirely possible for a person in authority to make their wishes clear, and even issue a threat should their desire not be fulfilled, without ever issuing an explicit instruction. So is this a matter of misinterpretation or not? That question may remain murky for some time.

One thing, however, is quite clear: that Mr Manning is making every attempt to portray himself as a concerned and responsible leader. Addressing the House of Representatives earlier this week, Mr Manning declared, “Mr Speaker, as I have in the past, it is my intention to act in this matter with scrupulous attention to fairness and the requirements of the rule of law.”

Mr Manning also made haste to dispatch letters to the Deputy DPP, Carla Browne-Antoine, to get an account of why the case against the CJ was discontinued. He has also written Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls to find out whether Mr McNicolls would be testifying in impeachment proceedings, and has since received that assurance.

However, there was absolutely no need to write the Deputy DPP, since she has already made it clear that the State could not proceed with the case without Mr McNicolls’ testimony. So why does the PM’s office want that in writing? It can only be PR and an attempt by the Government to give itself ammunition to criticise the Office of the DPP.

Even more blatant is Mr Manning’s letter to the Chief Magistrate. Here is a clear attempt to plead ignorance that Mr McNicolls was to refuse to give testimony on the basis that a criminal trial and impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice could not proceed at the same time.

But, as is now well known, Mr McNicolls wrote the DPP on this issue even before Mr Manning wrote the CJ that impeachment proceedings were being considered. One Government source, as reported in Thursday’s Newsday, tried to explain this by saying that the Prime Minister’s lawyers would have asked Mr McNicolls to provide a statement or Mr McNicolls himself could have asked the lawyers about the impeachment matter.

Even if this is so, however, Mr Manning would not now be needing to write the CM on his willingness to testify, save as an attempt to plead ignorance. And why should all these manoeuvres be necessary? The core reason is that the Government has breached, or has been perceived as breaching, the separation of powers that is a foundation of democracy.

And, if that is indeed the case, it would confirm the worst suspicions that have dogged the PNM administration in its last four years in office.


Trinidad & Tobago Newsday
Thursday, March 8 2007
DROP SHARMA CASE
By RIA TAITT

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was being pressured by the Government to drop the criminal charge against Chief Justice Sat Sharma, long before the case collapsed on Monday, sources in the DPP’s department said yesterday.

:

[zuluwarrior]

                                       
BY PRIOR BEHARRY
Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma should be immediately reinstated to office. This was the view of three senior legal practitioners who spoke yesterday on the condition of strict anonymity.
One said the Chief Justice was suspended because of the criminal charge of perverting the course of public justice hanging over his head, but since that is no longer the case, nothing is preventing him from resuming his normal duties.

Another said even when the President suspended the Chief Justice invoking section 103 of the Constitution, that section did not clearly state that President had the power to do so.

Section 103 states: “Where the office of Chief Justice is vacant or where the Chief Justice is for any reason unable to perform the functions of his office, then, until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of such office or until the Chief Justice has resumed those functions, as the case may be, those functions shall be performed by such other of the judges as may be appointed by the President, after consultation with Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.”

Invoking this section President George Maxwell Richards appointed the most senior Court of Appeal judge, Justice Roger Hamel-Smith, to act in the country’s third highest office last year.

The source said the Chief Justice was not “unable to perform the functions of his office.”

The Sunday Guardian understands that since he was suspended, Sharma has not been back to his office at the Hall of Justice, Knox Street, Port-of-Spain.

Another lawyer agreed that Sharma should not have been allowed to preside over criminal cases, when he had a criminal charge pending over his head. So, he felt, the President was justified in suspending Sharma.

But, this lawyer said, “Now that there is no case over his head, there is no reason why Mr Sharma cannot resume his duties as Chief Justice.”

Asked about the intention of the Prime Minister to invoke section 137 of the Constitution to begin impeachment proceedings against Sharma arising out of the same evidence that would have been used in the criminal trial, one attorney said, “This is just an intention. Nothing has been done yet.”

Prime Minister Patrick Manning had also advised the President to set up a tribunal under section 137 to investigate the Chief Justice for allegations that he also tried to influence the DPP in murder case against Professor Vijay Narayansingh.

But, one attorney said that matter has been stymied in court by the Chief Justice and therefore, no tribunal has been set up and “nothing is preventing Sat Sharma from fully performing his duties as the chief justice of T&T.”

The senior lawyer said the credibility of Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls, who was the main witness in the criminal case against the Chief Justice, and who refused to give evidence in that matter, was now under question.

He said, “The longer it takes to give back the CJ his job, the longer the administration of justice will be under threat because a sense of normalcy needs to be resumed in the Judiciary.

“We cannot have a judge acting indefinitely and then say that every thing is rosy with the way the legal wheels turn in this country.”

He said the Chief Magistrate was wrong to take it upon himself to withdraw from the criminal case.

The attorney said Mc Nicolls was a witness and should have been treated as such. He said Mc Nicolls acted as if he was the Director of Public Prosecutions who is the only person in this country to discontinue a prosecution.
 
©2005-2006 Trinidad Publishing Company Limited
Designed by: Randall Rajkumar-Maharaj · Updated daily by: Sheahan Farrell
 
 
 

[Mr Fix-it]

Where is this going now??  I just checked the express and from last week to this week things have changes from night to day.  Last week you could find anything about this case, this week nothing is printed?  Like gov't trying to keep everything hush hush so trini ppl would just forget about everything.  Anyway I was just looking for de answer

[dcs]

Should I suspend you?
By FRANCIS JOSEPH
Trinidad & Tobago Newsday
Wednesday, May 23 2007[/color][/b]


PRIME MINISTER Patrick Manning has written to Chief Justice Sat Sharma asking one question — “Should I advise the President to suspend you?” — while a three-member tribunal sits to determine whether Sharma should be removed from office.

In one of his rare visits to the Senate, Manning made a statement on the latest move to impeach Sharma for allegedly trying to influence Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls in the Basdeo Panday integrity trial.

The last time Manning went to the Senate was two years ago when he addressed the Chamber on another issue involving the Chief Justice.

Manning said he wrote to Sharma on Monday seeking his views on whether President George Maxwell Richards should be advised that Sharma should be suspended from performing the functions of his office pending the investigation.

Should Manning decide to advise the President to suspend Sharma, he would be acting in accordance with section 137 (4) of the Constitution.

Last year, when Sharma wrote to the President advising him that he was not sitting in court because of the criminal charge hanging over his head, the President removed him in accordance with section 103 of the constitution.

Last Friday, President Richards appointed a three-member tribunal to investigate whether Sharma should be removed from office.

In his brief statement, Manning said on February 15, 2005, he reported to the House that he contemplated invoking section 137 (4) of the Constitution with respect to a report made against the Chief Justice.

Last year, he said he received another report about the conduct of the CJ from the Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls. Manning said on both occasions, he held meetings with Sharma in the hope that he would be spared having to contemplate a matter that no other Prime Minister ever faced and for which there is no precedent in the Commonwealth.

Manning refused to comment on the first report which is before the Port-of-Spain High Court that relates to a report that Sharma tried to interfere in the murder case involving prominent vascular surgeon Dr Vijay Naraynsingh.

Manning said allegations were made by Mc Nicolls that Sharma had attempted to influence his decision in the trial of Panday who was charged with knowingly failing to declare his London bank account to the Integrity Commission for 1997, 1998, and 1999. Manning said on March 26, he received from Sharma his response to the allegations.

The main thrust, according to Manning, was that the credibility and reliability of the Chief Magistrate had been destroyed by his decision not to give evidence in the criminal proceedings against Sharma. Mc Nicolls refused to be cross-examined in the case brought against Sharma, forcing it to be dropped.

Manning sought advice from Jamaican Dr Lloyd Barnett QC, who appears for the State in certain matters in Trinidad, and British QC Mark Strachan, who is representing the PM in the first judicial review case brought by Sharma.

Manning continued, “I wish to emphasise that the decision which I have made does not constitute a finding of guilt against the Chief Justice. That is a decision which is to be made by the tribunal and the Privy Council.”

Contacted last night, Sharma said he did not receive Manning’s letter as it was written to his lawyers. Lawyers close to the CJ told Newsday that Sharma is prepared to appear before the tribunal. He will be asking that the inquiry be held in June and it be concluded in July, and most importantly, that it be held in public.

[dcs]

   
Revoke CJ's suspension
Opposition MP calls on President...
Darren Bahaw dbahaw@trinidadexpress.com
Trinidad Express
Friday, June 22nd 2007
   

A CALL has been made for Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma's suspension to be revoked because of the uncertainty surrounding the operations of a tribunal appointed to investigate allegations of misconduct against him.

President George Maxwell Richards has been given a deadline of 36 hours to respond to queries made yesterday by an Opposition MP, who is threatening to go to court to resolve the dilemma.

This new action seeks to press the State to take urgent steps to get the work of the tribunal going or put Sharma back into office until the tribunal is ready to proceed, one lawyer close to the case said.

Sharma, 64, was suspended from performing his duties on June 13 by the President who acted on the advice of Prime Minister Patrick Manning, some seven months before Sharma officially retires.

He is accused by Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls of attempting to influence the decision of a criminal case against former prime minister Basdeo Panday.

In a letter, dispatched to President's House and copied to the Prime Minister and the Attorney General's office attorney Cindy Bhagwandeen, acting on behalf of Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma, noted that it was "unclear whether a tribunal" appointed to investigate Sharma was appointed in accordance with Section 137 of the Constitution.

She noted that the question of suspending a Chief Justice from office can only arise "where the question of removing a judge from office has been referred to a tribunal" and so far, the public has only been informed through media reports that a tribunal, comprising retired Privy Councillor Lord Michael Mustill, Sir Vincent Floissac and Dennis Morrison, was appointed on May 18.

"However, to date no secretariat has been appointed and no date for the commencement of this crucial hearing has been set," Bhagwandeen, who is attached to the law Chamber of Anand Ramlogan, wrote.

"If such a tribunal was in fact appointed as a prelude to the suspension of the Chief Justice, it is imperative that the tribunal commence its inquiry under Section 137 (3) (b) forthwith. Although no deadline or time frame is stipulated in the Constitution for the commencement of hearings by the tribunal, it is expected that this would be done without delay.

"This is a necessary implication from the Constitution in light of the doctrine of separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary as an organ of the State, the entrenched security for judges and the limited grounds for their removal from office," the letter stated.

Bhagwandeen said: "The announcement of the appointment of a tribunal cannot and should not be used as a device to justify the suspension of the Chief Justice in the circumstances where the tribunal is not functional or ready and able to commence sitting."

"I am of the view that the Constitutional discretion vested in you to suspend the Honourable Chief Justice was meant to be exercised in circumstances where the tribunal is functional or ready and able to sit. To do otherwise, would be to misuse and/or abuse your power of suspension and render such suspension unconstitutional and illegal," she added.






Prez slams ‘disrespectful’ letter
Trinidad & Tobago Newsday
Saturday, June 23 2007

PRESIDENT George Maxwell Richards has taken offence at a letter sent to him from an attorney acting on behalf of the Opposition UNC. President Richards called the UNC attorney’s letter “disrespectful in the extreme and also factually incorrect.”

On Thursday, attorney Cindy Bhagwandeen wrote to the President asking for “clarification” as to his decision to suspend Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma, given the fact that to date, no Secretariat has been appointed to the Tribunal constituted on May 18, to investigate claims of misconduct on the part of the Chief Justice.

The letter asked the President – who is immune from court inquiries under Section 80 of the Constitution – to specify the exact date of the appointment of the individual members of the Tribunal; the proposed date for the appointment of a Secretariat; the proposed date for the start of hearings; details as to whether the hearing will be in camera or open to the public and where the proposed hearings will take place.

The letter also suggested that the President’s decision to suspend Sharma may have been unconstitutional and gave President Richards a 36-hour deadline in which to respond.

Through a letter sent via Private Secretary Jacqueline Serrette, President Richards replied saying, “the contents and tone of your letters are disrespectful in the extreme and also factually incorrect in certain respects.”

He nonetheless gave the undertaking to respond to the queries “out of courtesy.”

“If only for the reason that the subject of your inquiry concerns a matter of national importance, you will be responded to in due course,” he said.







The letter to President Richards

Sunday, June 24 2007
Trinidad & Tobago Newday

Dear Sir,

I wish to thank you for your prompt reply to my letter of June 21, 2007.

Whilst I am grateful to know that you will respond to the substantive issues outlined in my letter because it “concerns a matter of national importance,” I am at a loss to understand how you could consider “the tone and contents disrespectful in the extreme.”

My letter was written based on instructions provided by my client Mr Chandresh Sharma, MP but I did pause to verify the facts stated therein before sending this letter. The limited information available to the public about the ability and readiness of this tribunal to function and commence hearing the enquiry into whether there is good and substantial cause for the removal of the Chief Justice remains a matter of great political mystery. The public is yet to be informed about what steps (if any) have been taken to ensure that this tribunal is able to perform its duty.

What is “disrespectful in the extreme,” Your Excellency, is the suspension of the country’s Chief Justice on the eve of his retirement after a long and distinguished career in politically strange and suspicious circumstances. It is a fact that more than a month has elapsed since the appointment of this tribunal by you with no clear statement as to when it intends to commence its enquiry. This is contrary to the spirit and intention of the cardinal constitutional principles of the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary as an organ of the State, the entrenched security for judges and the limited grounds for their removal from office.

It is my view that you were under a duty to ensure that the necessary steps were taken over the past month to enable the tribunal to be in a position of readiness to commence its enquiry and then seek to suspend the Chief Justice. You therefore erred in prematurely and preemptively suspending the Chief Justice. The proverbial cart was indeed put before the horse.

It is “disrespectful in the extreme” for you to suspend the Chief Justice knowing full well that the Attorney General has not yet provided him with any funds to secure legal representation. This, while millions of dollars are spent by the Attorney General and your office to seek legal advice from a powerful battery of local and foreign Attorneys. The bell has sounded for the battle and Goliath is being fed and trained while David is yet to be provided with his slingshot.

In my view, the action of the State has demonstrated extreme disrespect for the Supreme law of the land. The suspension of the Chief Justice is inconsistent with the moral and spiritual values referred to in clause (d) of the Preamble to the Constitution.

Delay in commencing the hearing of this enquiry would mean that the Chief Justice was effectively constructively removed or summarily dismissed from office without a hearing under the guise of a suspension. I repeat, come January 2008, the Chief Justice must retire from office.

Your Excellency, time is of the essence in a very real way. The removal of the head of the nation’s judiciary who alleges that he is the victim of a political conspiracy is a recipe for chaos and disorder unless the situation is fairly and properly handled. The public is entitled to know the status of this tribunal and its enquiry and thus far precious little has been said on this matter despite the lapse of over one month since its appointment.

The public is entitled to a judiciary that is free from political interference and the Chief Justice is entitled to a practical and real opportunity to clear his name or be condemned.

These are trying times for our nation and great independence and neutrality is required from our Head of State. To trivialise the important issues raised in my letter by describing them as “disrespectful” without saying why is politically helpful to the ruling party but does not assist in the resolution of this constitutional crisis.

I have advised my client that we should await your promised response before we file the intended legal action to challenge the continued suspension of the Chief Justice but please note that in the circumstances I cannot hold my hands indefinitely as the stakes are too high.

Yours Sincerely,

_________________________

CINDY BHAGWANDEEN

[dcs]

TIT FOR TAT
McNicolls accused Sharma of misconduct because Sharma accused him of impropriety
Camini Marajh cmarajh@trinidadexpress.com

Trinidad Express
Sunday, June 24th 2007

   
facing tribunal: Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls.

Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls said he "never contemplated criminal proceedings" against Chief Justice Sat Sharma when he accused him of improperly trying to influence the outcome of the Basdeo Panday case.

And, in a shocking admission to the investigating officer appointed by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) to probe allegations of misconduct against him, McNicolls said he "cooperated with the police" because of impropriety allegations levelled against him by Chief Justice Sharma on a land transaction.

In the latest of several contradictory statements prepared by the Chief Magistrate and obtained by the Sunday Express, McNicolls, in private correspondence to the JLSC-appointed prober, Justice Sebastian Ventour, said that in the weeks leading up to the March 5. 2007 collapse of the criminal case against Sharma, he made his position clear that he was "not willing to testify".

In his three-page statement of defence entitled, "Explanation", McNicolls declared that he expressed his reluctance to testify both in writing and verbally to the State's team of prosecutors. In his March 21, 2007 explanation to Justice Ventour, McNicolls cited the February 13, 2007 correspondence he sent to deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Carla Brown-Antoine on the matter.

McNicolls, Sharma's main accuser, said he was reluctant to swear to four of his statements prepared for criminal and impeachment proceedings against Sharma. "Ultimately, I swore to the statements but I was under the impression that the deputy DPP would revert to me on the concerns I had expressed," he wrote, in attempting to justify his refusal to have his evidence tested on cross-examination.

The Chief Magistrate's explanation also spotlights the controversial role of Attorney General John Jeremie in Impeachment I and II of Chief Justice Sharma. McNicolls said he had told the Attorney General of his concerns not to be cross-examined in the criminal proceedings and briefed him on the February 13 letter he had dispatched to the deputy DPP the week before.

He wrote: "The Attorney General said he understood my position and remembered that there might have been some thing in the Judgment of the Privy Council in the matter involving the Chief Justice about duplicate proceedings." As reported in an exclusive Sunday Express story last week, Ventour was hard pressed, after a careful study of the November 2006 judgment, to find the reference McNicolls said he relied on.

The Ventour findings on the question of McNicolls misconduct noted that: "It has not been disclosed what information the Chief Magistrate was privy to in order to make the determination that there were in existence parallel proceedings when he wrote to the DPP requesting that immediate steps be taken to stay the criminal proceedings against the Chief Justice. It is public knowledge that the Prime Minister's letter to the Chief Justice requesting a written response to the complaint was forwarded to the Chief Justice on February 21, 2007. When the Chief Magistrate wrote to the DPP on February 13, 2007, there was no parallel proceedings in existence."

Still, according to the McNicolls explanation, the Attorney General played a central role in directing some of the events connected to his claims of interference against the Chief Justice. He revealed Jeremie's involvement in setting up a planned private meeting at his official Cabildo Chambers on the morning of February 23, 2007 between the Attorney General, the deputy DPP and himself.

McNicolls said he was unable to keep the appointment and was later told by Jeremie that he had met with the deputy DPP and that "they had had a good meeting." The Attorney General also advised him "to give serious consideration to testifying" at the enquiry, he said.

For his part, Jeremie admitted to being "somewhat surprised" by Justice Ventour's request for a written statement about his role in the affair. In his March 23, 2007 response to the JLSC-appointed investigator, Jeremie wrote: "Insofar as your request is concerned, having received same from you, and only out of respect to the Commission, I feel duty-bound to assist and do so by providing you with a copy of the letter which I sent to the DPP in response to a request by him made as a result of the Court of Appeal re-opening the Panday case."

Jeremie's letter to the DPP, dated March 17, 2006 said this: "I undertook to meet with the deputy DPP and the Chief Magistrate on the morning of February 23, 2007. I hoped to have them discuss the matter together and thrash out the issues." He noted McNicolls absence and the "general discussion" he had with the deputy DPP about "the possible need to disengage one set of proceedings at some time."

The Court of Appeal was, however, sharply critical of both the Attorney General and the Chief Magistrate's conduct. In ordering former Prime Minister Panday to face a retrial on three charges of failing to declare a London bank account, the Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Margot Warner, Ivor Archie and Paula Mae-Weekes, in separate judgments, found that Panday's conviction and sentences to be unsafe on the basis of apparent bias on the part of Mc Nicolls, the magistrate who found Panday guilty on all counts and sent him to jail.

In the April 4, 2007 judgment, Justice Archie had this to say: "It would do nothing for the confidence of the hypothetical observer to note that the Chief Magistrate sought the intervention of the Attorney General when he no longer wishes to testify and that the Attorney General thought it fit to intervene personally. It does not matter that he urged the Chief Magistrate to fulfill his [message cut off on Express website...if anyone have the rest scan or something please]

[dcs]

The Ventour report
Trinidad Express
Sunday, June 17th 2007


On March 5 this year, the State's criminal case against Chief Justice Sat Sharma fell dramatically after the main witness, Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls, refused to have his evidence tested under cross-examination.

Three days later, members of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission met in a specially convened meeting at the Hall of Justice to determine allegations of misconduct against Chief Magistrate McNicolls. They agreed to appoint Justice Sebastian Ventour investigating officer. He concluded his enquiry and on April 11 this year submitted a six-page report, under cover of confidentiality to the JLSC.

Following is the full Ventour Report:

Allegation of Misconduct

The allegation of misconduct made against Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls is that without reasonable excuse he acted in a manner that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in that" he, Sherman McNicolls, Chief Magistrate, on the 5th day of March, 2007 at the Fourth Court, Port of Spain Magistrate's Court, presided over by her Worship Lianne Lee Kim refused to allow himself to be cross-examined on the statements he had made to the police in relation to the criminal proceedings Sergeant Romany -v- Satnarine Sharma for attempting to pervert the course of justice which statements had been tendered in the said proceedings and formed part of the evidence and which resulted in the said proceedings being discontinued.

An allegation of misconduct against a Chief Magistrate in the context of the particulars described above is a matter of grave concern for the administration of justice. In considering the allegations two questions need to be answered:

(1) Does the refusal of the Chief Magistrate to allow himself to be cross-examined on the statements he had made to the police in relation to the criminal proceedings against the Honourable Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma amount to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice?

If the answer to question one is in the affirmative then

(2) Did the Chief Magistrate advance any reasons which may justify his decision not to be cross-examined in the said criminal proceedings?

One of the primary functions of the judiciary is to build and sustain public confidence in the administration of justice. Therefore that can be no gainsaying that when judicial officers conduct themselves in a manner, which is prejudicial to the administration of justice, then public confidence in the system could be seriously eroded.

The Chief Magistrate's conduct

On the information before me there is absolutely no dispute that the Chief Magistrate refused to be cross-examined in the criminal proceedings held before presiding Magistrate Lianne Lee Kim on 5th day of March, 2007 in the case of Sergeant Romany -v- Satnarine Sharma. The Chief Magistrate has himself admitted to such conduct in the written explanation he submitted on 21 March, 2007. The decision not to be cross-examined must be viewed in an historical perspective in order to determine whether the conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In his explanation the Chief Magistrate confirmed that he had made a complaint to the Prime

REPORT from Page 3

Minister concerning the conduct of the Honourable Chief Justice and that when he did so it was with the clear intention of having the matter dealt with under Section 137 of the Constitution. The Chief Magistrate further said that he never contemplated criminal proceedings against the Chief Justice.

Indeed, it is difficult to appreciate the Chief Magistrate's statement that he never contemplated criminal proceedings against the Chief Justice. If it is that the Chief Justice is alleged to have conducted himself in a manner which is not only improper but contrary to law (as the Chief Magistrate himself had concluded, which is why he took the matter to the Prime Minister in the first place) then it cannot be for the Chief Magistrate to determine the parameters as to how the wrong doer is to be dealt with by the law. That is a matter for the police. Whether or not the Chief Magistrate contemplated criminal proceedings when the complaint was laid is therefore totally irrelevant to any subsequent prosecution of the perpetrator.

In the events that followed, the allegation of wrongdoing was intensely investigated by the police and several statements were recorded, including statements by the Chief Magistrate himself. The police acting on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions found that the Honourable Chief Justice committed a criminal offence and on July 14, 2006 the police preferred a charge of attempting to pervert the course of public justice against the Chief Justice at the Port of Spain Magistrate's Court.

The statement received from the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions confirmed that throughout the preparation of the case they (the police) had received the fullest cooperation from the Chief Magistrate, who, on the morning of February 14, 2007 swore to four statements knowing that the statements were to be tendered into evidence and that he (the Chief Magistrate) is likely to be cross-examined on the evidence tendered.

In all of this it must not be forgotten that the person accused of the criminal offence was the Chief Justice of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and that a criminal charge was laid as a result of the complaint made by the Chief Magistrate against the said Chief Justice, who, while the charge was pending was not allowed to perform his duties as Chief Justice.,

The circumstances surrounding the Chief Justice's arrest had been argued before the Privy Council and in many respects the case was seen as unprecedented in the Commonwealth jurisdiction.

On March 5, 2007 when the matter was called before the presiding Magistrate Mr Gilbert Peterson, SC, Lead Counsel for the Prosecution indicated to the Magistrate that he was adopting a particular course in the matter and was not proceeding any further with the prosecution because of the position taken by the Chief Magistrate. Mr McNicolls, the Chief Magistrate, had taken the decision not to allow himself to be cross-examined on the sworn statements he had made and which was tendered into evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The case against the Chief Justice collapsed as a result of the Chief Magistrate's action. The presiding magistrate then discharged the Honourable Chief Justice. He was never given the opportunity to test the credibility of his accuser by way of cross-examination on the statements the Chief Magistrate had made to the police in relation to the criminal proceedings.

In my respectful view, it would appear that the Chief Magistrate's decision not to allow himself to be cross-examined in the criminal proceedings may have compromise the rule of law and the administration of justice. Clearly the decision has led to a waste of human and financial resources and has succeeded in sending the wrong message to the general public.

Is there justification for the Chief Magistrate's decision

It is therefore necessary to examine the reasons articulated by the Chief Magistrate for his decision not to allow himself to be cross-examined on the statements he made to the police in the matter. On the day following his decision, that is, the 6th March, 2007 the Chief Magistrate issued a press release seeking to justify his decision not to be cross-examined in the case against the Chief Justice. In the press release the Chief Magistrate alluded to certain remarks made by the Privy Council "about the existence of parallel proceedings" and about his eagerness "to give evidence in the proper forum in relation to the Sharma matter".

While it is true that the Chief Magistrate did not elaborate on some of the statements he made in the press release it was clear that he was concerned about the coexistence of the impeachment proceedings (pursuant to Section 137 of the Constitution) and criminal proceedings in which he was being called upon to submit himself for cross-examination. He then went further to express the view that it was improper for him to be cross-examined in two separate proceedings and that since the impeachment proceedings should have priority over the criminal proceedings he was prepared to testify and be subjected to cross-examination only in the impeachment proceedings.

The Chief Magistrate was a little more specific in his explanation when he said that he had discovered upon his examination of the Privy Council's decision (I believe that his reference to the Court of Appeal, may have been an error) in the Sharma's case, their Lordships had made some negative remarks about the existence of parallel proceedings. As a consequence, he held the view that the existence of both sets of proceedings would amount to oppressive conduct and that he was not prepared to participate in any such proceedings against that were oppressive.

I have carefully read the judgment handed down by the Privy Council on 30th November, 2006 in the Sharma's appeal. I have not been able to find any negative remarks made by their Lordships about the existence of parallel proceedings amounting to oppressive conduct. I have noted however the dicta made by Lord Bingham and Lord Walker in paragraph 2 of their decision where it is stated as follows:

"In practical terms the question is whether the decision to prosecute the Chief Justice, by who so ever made, should be examined by way of judicial review or whether the criminal process (subject to any application the Chief Justice may hereafter make) should at this stage be allowed to take its course. It is not suggested that both processes can be pursued at the same time (Emphasis added).

Implicit in the last sentence is the argument that it may be wrong to pursue proceedings in two separate actions against an accuser in respect of the same complaint. The Privy Council however, was there referring to the judicial review proceedings filed by the Chief Justice on the one hand and the criminal proceedings against the Chief Justice on the other.

It has not been disclosed what information the Chief Magistrate was privy to in order to make the determination that there were in existence parallel proceedings when he wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions by letter dated 13th February, 2007 requesting that "immediate steps" be taken to stay the criminal proceedings against the Chief Justice. It is public knowledge that the Prime Minister's letter to the Chief Justice requesting a written response to the complaint was forwarded to the Chief Justice on 21st February, 2007. When the Chief Magistrate wrote the Director of Public Prosecutions on 13th February, 2007 there was no parallel proceedings in existence. The Chief Magistrate must have appreciated that based on the response of the Chief Justice the probability exists that the Prime Minister may have decided (based on advice) not to proceed any further with the impeachment proceedings. Requesting a stay of the proceedings in the circumstances was therefore premature.

Moreover, when the Chief Magistrate decided on 5th March, 2007 not to allow himself to be cross-examined the Chief Justice had not yet responded to the Prime Minister's letter of 21st February, 2007. Even at that stage it could hardly be said that there were in existence parallel proceedings. I think the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions quite properly concluded that the reasons articulated by the Chief Magistrate in support of the decision not to be cross-examined were therefore untenable. See her letter of the 5th March, 2007.

Another of the Chief Magistrate's reasons for refusing to be cross-examined as stated in his letter of 13th February, 2007 was his concern about "my junior officers being put in a dilemma to adjudicate on a matter concerning my testimony..." Did the Chief Magistrate resent the thought of having to appear before one of his subordinates at the criminal proceedings? What dilemma is he referring to? His subordinates have all taken an oath to administer the laws of the land without fear or favour. His concern about "his junior officers being put into a dilemma" cannot support his decision not to allow himself to be cross-examined in the criminal proceedings.

Having said that, the Chief Magistrate may have fallen into serious error in failing to appreciate his role in the criminal proceedings. He was simply a witness who happened to be the Chief Magistrate. As a witness he was not being called upon to render any judgment based on "precedent and facts." As a witness he was not the one to decide which of the proceedings (whether impeachment or criminal) was to take precedent over the other. At the material time he was not wearing the hat of Chief Magistrate and therefore it was not his responsibility nor was it within his power to decide whether it was "improper both in principle and in law to allow for the cross examination of evidence in two separate proceedings which were at roughly the same stage in their development." Sadly enough, that was not his call.

It seems to me that the matters which informed the decision of the Chief Magistrate not to be cross-examined are matters which ought to have been properly put before the Director of Public Prosecutions and/or Lead Counsel Mr Gilbert Peterson, SC for their consideration and decision. The Chief Magistrate laboured under a serious misapprehension as to his proper role as the main witness in the criminal proceedings. Having himself for a lawyer he was ill advised and his actions may very well have compromised the rule of law and the administration of justice.

Whether the Chief Magistrate should be charged with an offence having regard to all the circumstances, is a matter within the sole discretion of the Commission pursuant to sub-regulation (6) of the Regulations.

It is indeed mind boggling to hear the Chief Magistrate's state in his EXPLANATION that "if the Director of Public Prosecutions' lawyers or the presiding Magistrate had indicated to me that my reasons for testifying were not accepted I WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED".

I have declined to comment on the minor contradictions emanating in the Chief Magistrate's EXPLANATION and the statement submitted by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions on the facts leading up to the Chief Magistrate decision not to be cross-examined. I decline to do so because those contradictions are of no relevance to the ultimate decision taken by the Chief Magistrate.

My report is submitted for the Commission's consideration.

Dated this 11th day of April, 2007.