Chief Justice safe: PM says no to impeachment

PRIME MINISTER Dr Keith Rowley has once again ended the prospect of Chief Justice Ivor Archie being investigated on claims that he recommended over a dozen people to get government housing.

His decision is contained in a two-page letter sent to Law Association president Douglas Mendes on February 27.

It came just over a week after a High Court judge had ruled that the Prime Minister’s original decision not to invoke impeachment proceedings appeared to have been influenced by politics.

Justice Vasheist Kokaram had ruled that the Prime Minister would have to reconsider the matter with an “open mind.”

All of the other complaints raised by the Law Association challenging the PM’s decision were thrown out by the judge.

In response, Rowley told reporters at a post-Cabinet briefing, that he was not getting involved in the Law Association and the Chief Justice “kangkatang.”

However, in his latest correspondence, Rowley stated he took into account the judge’s findings before reconsidering his decision on the HDC issue “with an open mind and without regards to any political or other motivation” on the part of the Law Association.

“After such consideration, I have decided not to make a representation to the President under Section 137 of the Constitution,” he stated and said it was based on the same reasons set out fully in his initial decision on July 22, last year.

Reached for comment, Mendes would only say that the organisation intends to issue a statement to its membership on the issue within 24 hours.

The Law Association had complained that Rowley “was more concerned with shutting down” its recommendation to invoke Section 137 because he believed it was acting at the behest of the opposition United National Congress (UNC.)

Kokaram, in his 173-page ruling stated: “Unfortunately, there were some ill-advised remarks made by the Prime Minister literally on the eve of disclosing his decision which disclosed the Prime Minister’s consideration of the LATT as a tool of his political enemy and their complaint a bold political trap.”

He said a section 137 process must, from its inception, be respected and revered as an important constitutional task.

In an apparent response, Rowley, in his latest letter to the Law Association said: “I am an experienced parliamentarian of some 33 years; as well as, I possess a thorough understanding of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, and of my role as Prime Minister. In the discharge of the functions of Prime Minister, both under s137 and in other respects, I scrupulously observe my oath and constitutional mandate.”

In July 2019, Rowley said he did not initiate impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice after receiving legal advice.

He said then the advice guided him on deciding there were insufficient grounds to warrant him to make a representation to the President for Archie’s removal and for a tribunal to be set up to investigate the series of allegations which arose in 2017.

The association’s complaint to the Prime Minister was the result of its own investigations into allegations in media reports which highlighted several allegations against Archie, including trying to fast-track HDC applications for various people.

Archie responded to the HDC allegation, saying he lobbied no one.

The Law Association’s recommendation to investigate the Chief Justice for misbehaviour in public office had been supported by the legal opinions of two dis­tin­guished Caribbean ju­rists – for­mer Grena­da at­tor­ney gen­er­al Dr Fran­cis Alex­is, QC, and Ea­mon Courte­nay, SC, the for­mer at­tor­ney gen­er­al of Be­lize.

Al­le­ga­tions against Archie about his close as­so­ci­a­tion with two con­vict­ed fraud­sters – Dil­lian John­son and Kern Romero – and his in­ter­ven­tion in fast-track­ing hous­ing ap­pli­ca­tions for over a dozen peo­ple be­tween 2013 and 2015, had raised ques­tions about his judge­ment.

In one case, Archie had re­ferred the names of three peo­ple – Dy­lan Hug­gins, Car­ol Williams and Fe­li­cia Pierre – to the Prime Min­is­ter.

In response, Rowley had stated that he did not receive any communication from the Chief Justice regarding HDC housing and did not think it was “inappropriate” for the CJ to contact HDC officials to seek housing for “needy and deserving” people.