Tobago four hit PM, CJ

FORMER head of the Public Service Reginald Dumas and three other senior figures from Tobago yesterday criticised the Prime Minister and Chief Justice over the state of the judiciary, including the recently proposed transfer of Justice Carol Gobin to Tobago (without calling her name).

A statement yesterday from Dumas, economist Vanus James, historian Mervyn O’Neil and agriculturist Reginald Phillips said recent events showed the judiciary was in turmoil and maybe meltdown.

“As the story goes, the Chief Justice (Ivor Archie) stands accused of seeking benefits from the Executive for his friends. If true, such actions threaten to compromise the independence of the Judiciary.

“Informed by its chequered history in Trinidad, citizens in Tobago rightly worry that the Executive would seize the opportunity to grant such requests and then heap pressure on the Chief Justice to call cases in its favour when deemed necessary.”

The quartet said the Law Association (LATT) has investigated and has concluded Archie may have acted in a way that compromises the Judiciary. The statement said LATT contends the CJ’s alleged conduct could qualify as "misbehaviour" under the Constitution (Section 137(1)) which says a judge may be removed from office for inability to perform his functions or for misbehaviour.

“There is now an open war between the Chief Justice, several of his senior judges, and much of the legal fraternity, and several calls have been made for him to step down. He has dismissed them all as efforts to ‘hound him from office.’”

The statement recalled LATT inviting Dr Rowley to act under the Constitution to represent to the President that the question of removing the Chief Justice ought to be investigated, but the PM refused, citing advice to the contrary from a British Queen's Counsel.

“More troubling, the Prime Minister has not only now openly declared on the stump that members of the Judiciary are sympathizing with criminals, allowing them to go free to continue their destructive practices in the country, a surprising departure from his public pledge last year to erect a 'Chinese wall' between the Executive and the Judiciary.”

The four alleged Rowley has also politicised the issue by criticizing the LATT by claiming it was influenced by the opposition UNC.

“These political attacks come over as convenient cover for the decision not to approach the President on the matter of the Chief Justice.”

The response does not to allay public fears over the Judiciary’s independence from Executive pressure and political interference, they said.

“Further, it seems a great irony that the Chief Justice now appears to be disciplining one of his judicial critics (Gobin) by banishing her to Tobago. Especially since he is a Tobagonian, the Chief Justice must surely be aware that assignment to Tobago cannot be contemplated as a legitimate form of discipline.”

The statement asked if Rowley was right, how Tobagonians could have confidence that Gobin and others can properly/fairly dispense justice in Tobago. These developments, it said, were causing grave concerns among Tobagonians who want an independent, fair and efficient judiciary.

“They are triggering calls for the Parliament to complete its work on constitution reform to provide meaningful autonomy for Tobago and for constitution reform in TT otherwise. The desired reforms must provide the opportunity for Tobagonians to act, in Tobago, in the national interest, when there is palpable misconduct in Trinidad that threatens our best interest in a well-run democracy.”

Saying the developments in the Judiciary are a case in point, the statement said the THA Act denies the THA any role in the judiciary so they and other Tobagonians are basically bystanders watching these very disturbing developments with alarm.

“The current machinations in Trinidad are a reminder to Tobagonians that this responsibility is exercised without any regard to their opinions and independent desires for a well-run Judiciary. Indeed, this is a matter that affects citizens in Trinidad as well. It should not be left up to the Prime Minister only, any Prime Minister, to take action in an area so crucial to the institutional wellbeing of the country.”