Judiciary is a casualty in CJ matter

SENIOR attorney Avory Sinanan, SC, says whether or not the Law Association (LATT) makes a complaint of allegations of misconduct against Chief Justice Ivor Archie, the Judiciary remains a casualty, having gone through a “veritable war.”

“The judiciary remains a casualty. The Judiciary has gone through a veritable war. It is battle-scarred,” Sinanan said on the CNC3’s Morning Brew programme yesterday.

He used the nursery rhyme Humpty Dumpty to illustrate his point.

“I think there are committed men and women judicial officers who see their role as dispensing justice and see their role and career as helping to build the democracy. However, it is shattered. They are going to take up the pieces and put it back together again.”

In a written ruling delivered yesterday, the Privy Council dismissed Archie’s challenge of the LATT’s investigation of him.

Sinanan said it was important to understand that the LATT’s challenge was not a shadow of the Section 137 impeachment provision, as Archie’s lawyers claimed. Instead the association was on an examination or fact-finding mission to inform itself whether the allegations bandied about in the media since November last year were sufficient to make a complaint to the prime minister for him to decide whether to move forward with impeachment proceedings.

He said a win by the LATT did not mean there can be “rejoicing in the street,” since the association’s investigation could either end with the CJ being exonerated or the allegations being substantiated and its council going to its membership for further directions on sending a complaint to the prime minister.

Also commenting on the ruling was attorney Kelvin Ramkissoon. He said it would be improper to speculate on the findings of the LATT’s report or what the outcome of the special general meeting of the membership would be.

However, he said, there was nothing preventing the prime minister from invoking the Section 137 process with or without the LATT’s report.

“He can come to his own conclusion at this time as to whether he ought to represent to the President that the question of removing the Chief Justice ought to be considered.

“It is exclusively within the province of the Prime Minister to trigger the process. It is a power that must be exercised based on the information before him and must be done fairly, taking into account the public interest and the interest of the administration of justice amongst other factors. “

Ramkissoon said there existed sufficient basis for the prime minister to now act independently in his own judgment to trigger the process.

“He owes a duty to the administration of justice to do so. It allows the Chief Justice the full spectrum of natural justice and the allegations to be proved or disproved.

“The Prime Minister can do so in parallel to any LATT process. The burden must not be shifted to the LATT. It has its role and so does the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has maintained that he was constrained by law, and could not “willy-nilly” decide he was unhappy with the Chief Justice or the judiciary and jump in to fix it.

His statements, which were interpreted by Justice Nadia Kangaloo, who first ruled in Archie’s favour, to mean that the prime minister would not get involved, were mentioned by the Privy Council in their ruling yesterday.

The LATT did its own investigations into allegations in media reports that accused the CJ of attempting to persuade judges to change their state-provided security in favour of a private company where his friend Dillian Johnson worked.

Archie was also accused of trying to fast-track Housing Development Corporation (HDC) applications for various people.