Law Association tells politicians: Leave court matters out of public debates

MATTERS engaging the attention of a court ought not to be subjected to public debates, discussions or comments, the Law Association (LATT) said on Tuesday.

In a statement, the association said it viewed “with great concern” recent comments made on political platforms.

The association's statements comes after the recent imbroglio involving a procedural appeal in a multi-million dollar cartel case over contracts awarded by the Estate Management and Business Development Company Ltd (EMBD) in the run up to the 2015 general elections against a former UNC minister and several others.

However, the association said the court should be allowed to make its decision “uninfluenced by such discourse and, certainly, uninfluenced by the views or comments of politicians.”

On June 29, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Mark Mohammed and Maria Wilson chastised statements made by the Prime Minister and Opposition MP Dr Roodal Moonilal – who was a subject to one of the appeals before the court – for statements they made earlier in June on the appeal.

Moonilal’s response on June 19, to comments made by the Prime Minister was deemed “vulgar” by the judges. Dr Rowley’s statements on June 12, they said, were inaccurate.

In its statement, LATT said it knows that “verbal sparring between political contenders is quite common and is likely to be more energetic during an election season when no effort is likely to be spared by contenders seeking to gain an advantage over their opponents.”

However, it admonished, “What is troubling … is the apparent lack of concern displayed by those offering themselves to govern for the impact on the governed of encouraging the belief that our nation’s Judiciary is not impartial.”

It further chided, “This is a dangerous development for which we are not grateful. An unfounded claim that the court has ruled in one side’s favour has been answered by a direct insinuation from the other side that the Judiciary is in cahoots with the maker of the unfounded claim.”

The association said “not so long ago,” a minister “unapologetically insinuated that a judge’s ruling on a serious matter of state overreach had been the product of some personal relationship between the judge and the party complaining of the overreach.”

It maintained that politicians must know that unwarranted attacks on the independence of the Judiciary “sow doubts in the minds of their followers” about the integrity of the judicial system.

“Doubts which may not be easy to remove.”

It said, “There are, of course, laws which proscribe unjustified, unsubstantiated attacks on the independence of the Judiciary.

“However, the spectacle of hauling Members of Parliament before the courts to account for possible transgressions of these laws may do more harm than good.”

Referring specifically to options open to the court to condemn hostile criticisms of it– these include criminal charges of contempt or scandalising the court (also a form of contempt) – the association said it appeared the Judiciary considered the implications of enforcing these laws but decided it would better serve TT’s interest to endure these unwarranted attacks.

“The Judiciary, however, must not be the only body which places the interests of our nation first.”

In their statements on the comments made by Dr Rowley and Dr Moonilal, the judges issued a joint statement. In his, Bereaux said these criminal laws still remained on TT’s statute books.

However, he said it should be used sparingly. Bereaux said criminal prosecution because of statements, however vulgar or puerile, was unlikely to foster confidence in the administration of justice.