LATT denies CJ's request

THE Law Association (LATT) has flatly denied a request by Chief Justice Ivor Archie to issue a public statement saying there is no basis on which it can properly make a complaint to the prime minister to invoke impeachment proceedings against him.

In a letter to Archie’s attorneys, at the firm Alexander, Jeremie and Co, on Sunday, LATT president Douglas Mendes, SC, said the council could not accede to the CJ’s request.

Mendes was responding to a letter Archie sent to the LATT last week in which his lawyers said they had studied the association's report and the advice of its external counsel and found that there was no basis on which the association could make a complaint to the prime minister under Section 137 of the Constitution.

The LATT’s report and the advice of its attorneys – Eamon Courtenay, SC, and Dr Francis Alexis, QC, along with Archie’s letter to the association, have been sent to the association’s membership ahead of today’s special general meeting at which a vote will be taken on whether to refer the allegations against Archie to the prime minister.

Archie’s lawyers accused the LATT of arriving at “adverse conclusions” based on the alleged absence of the CJ’s denials of the allegations, reliance on hearsay and on authenticated/disputed photographs and social media images.

The CJ’s lawyers also acknowledged that while the LATT was permitted to investigate the allegations and, if justifiable, make a complaint to the prime minister in a responsible manner, it could not solicit advice on whether the allegations constituted inability to perform or misbehaviour within the meaning of section 137.

In their opinions, the two jurists had conflicting opinions, but both said, even assuming the allegations against the CJ were true, they did not affect his ability to perform under section 137.

They disagreed on whether there was sufficient basis for the Prime Minister to invoke the impeachment provisions of the Constitution.

Alexis, a former attorney general of Grenada and president of that country’s bar association, said it was “not for the LATT to decide whether there was sufficient basis for the Prime Minister to make a removal representation regarding the Chief Justice.”

Rather, he said, the LATT might bring to the attention of the PM the allegations in the association’s final report, and “leave it to the Prime Minister to consider and decide whether there is a sufficient basis for him to make such removal representation.” Alexis also said the LATT must pay particular attention to the reminder from the Privy Council in its ruling on August that the CJ was “not accountable” to the association.

Courtney, however, was of the opinion that, on the assumption that the allegations against Archie were true, they “may constitute misbehaviour” under Section 137. He ended by saying there was sufficient basis for the PM to represent that the question of removing Archie ought to be investigated.

Archie’s lawyers complained of some of Courtenay’s findings, saying he encroached on the constitutional remit of the prime minister when he advised that the prime minister was duty-bound to represent to the president that the allegations ought to be investigated.

“Of even greater alarm to us is that fact that Courtenay’s opinion makes a serious of purported factual observations that go further than the assumed facts and incorporate (presumably) his own assertions and inferences.

“On the other hand, Alexis clearly identified those allegations that are live and those which no longer arise…His overall evaluation is that there is neither inability nor misbehaviour within section 137 of the Constitution.”

Mendes told the CJ on Sunday that the responsible thing to do would be to put his concerns to the LATT’s membership at today’s meeting.

He said, “We do not agree that the LATT is not permitted to seek advice as to whether the allegations made against the Chief Justice constitute inability to perform or misbehaviour. If, assuming that the allegations are true, they are considered by respected counsel to constitute inability or misbehaviour, that would clearly be a relevant consideration in determining whether a reference to the prime minister under Section 137 should be made, as would an opinion to the contrary."

Mendes also acknowledged that there was a difference of opinion between Alexis and Courtenay, although they both recommended referral to the prime minister.