I have no political connection – judge defends choice to stay on TTRA challenge

High Court judge Betsy Ann Lambert-Peterson has maintained she has no political relationship with her husband, Senior Counsel Gilbert Peterson, or anyone else.

Lambert-Peterson made the statement on Friday, which was seemingly sent to only one media house.

On Friday, Newsday requested a link to the hearing of the Public Services Association (PSA) challenge of the judge’s failure to recuse herself from hearing its complaint over the constitutionality of the TT Revenue Authority Act and the operationalisation of several portions of it.

Newsday’s request was acknowledged by the Judiciary’s court protocol and information department. It said the request was sent to the judge’s team for approval. No link was provided. Newsday later learned that the matter had been adjourned to next Thursday.

However, the judge’s statement said on June 14, she was asked to recuse herself so the matter can be reassigned to a different judge.

Lambert-Peterson is presiding over the claim filed by customs officer Terrisa Dhoray who alleges that the TTRA Act has given the government political control over the authority and that the law facilitates and allows undue political influence and interference with the authority’s management.

In the application, Dhoray maintained that the matter was politically sensitive because of the importance to the government and the ruling party, that she was of the view that there was a realistic possibility of unconscious and sub-conscious bias because of her husband.

In her statement, the judge said the case was docketed to her.

“This is an administrative process, over which I have no control. This matter, like any other constitutional motion listed before me, will be determined on its merits.”

“I have no ‘political connection.'”

She admitted her husband had a professional relationship with the Prime Minister and played golf with a group which includes Dr Rowley.

Lambert-Peterson said her husband also had no political affiliations or relationships.

“I am not aware of him lending political support to the People’s National Movement, or any person or political party.”

She also said there was no need for her to notify Dhoray that she is married to Peterson nor was any complaint raised by Dhoray’s attorney, Anand Ramlogan,SC, when the matter was first docketed to her.

She also said no matter how small the case was, she did not adjudicate in any involving Peterson.

Responding to the apparent bias application that her husband was the personal lawyer, a close friend and golfing partner of the prime minister, she said as far as she knew, Peterson represented Dr Rowley in several court matters and he adheres to the ‘cab-rank’ rule which prevents advocate attorneys from refusing work because they disagree with the actions or views of those seeking their services.

She again said she knows Dr Rowley to be one of her husband’s golfing friends, not “golfing partner;” had been appointed by the President on the advice of the government on two state boards; was also the chairman of the disciplinary committee of the Law Association and was appointed senior counsel in 2003.

“His counsel is widely sought. I am aware that Mr. Peterson’s appointments are based on his legal experience and standing and are not ‘political appointments.'”

She also said she was not aware of some of the other complaints made by Dhoray on TATT’s decisions.

“I am not privy to the day-to-day or internal operations of TATT.” She further said that as chairman, he was only one of the people responsible for making policy decisions for TATT and that her husband, “guards his independence jealously.

“I have no knowledge of Mr Peterson SC displaying political bias.”

On his “lucrative" legal briefs from the government and him being a strong supporter of the ruling PNM, she had this to say, “I do not know Mr Peterson to have any party affiliation. I am aware that he has been retained from time to time by the State through the respective offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General by virtue of the State Liability and Proceedings Act.”

She said when retained, he is remunerated for the work done. “I am aware that Mr Peterson’s legal counsel is sought by governments throughout the English–speaking Caribbean.”

Lambert-Peterson also admitted he spoke against a motion of no-confidence in the Attorney General in 2022 and had purchased two townhouses in Tobago from Inez Investments Ltd.

“I am not aware of the political affiliations of the persons who own townhouses in that development.”

On her husband’s bunkering licence, she said he was a director of RH Gas Ltd but she was not privy to the company’s operations nor was she aware of any controversy concerning the company.

She also spoke of his legal representation of Weston “Cro Cro” Rawlins, maintaining her husband operated in the highest tradition of the Bar.

“I have nothing to disclose. I have been a judicial officer since 1995. I am bound by the oaths taken during my career on the Bench.

“Through my qualifications, experience and training, including training on ‘implicit bias’ I adjudicate in a wide cross-section of matters on a daily basis.”

The judge also said she took notes she considered appropriate when hearing oral submissions and the only person with access to her chambers at the Waterfront Judicial Centre, where she conducts court hearings, was her secretary.

Lambert-Peterson maintained that the TTRA challenge before her concerned the constitutionality of a statute and the legal issues for determination will be determined by legal principles.

“Marriage has not dimmed my ability to exercise a high degree of agency in my personal and professional life.”