Law Asssociation slams AG for attack on judge

TheTrinidad and Tobago Law Association has raised its voice in support of Justice Rajendra Narine, saying Attorney General, John Jeremie, and retired Justice Jean Permanand, were both wrong to criticise the judge in regard to the judge's order to have an affidavit by Yasin Abu Bakr investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Commissioner of Police (CoP).

Jeremie launched an attack on the judge in Parliament suggesting that he was out of line in seeking the probe. Jeremie argued that Justice Narine appeared to ignore the fact that two higher courts, including the Privy Council, had ruled that the contentious affidavit was irrelevant to Bakr's case.

However, Jeremie omitted the fact that the Privy Council suggested that if an agreement existed between Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Bakr as alleged in the affidavit it was a breach of the country's corruption law.

Without subjecting the matter to any kind of investigation the attorney general concluded that Manning was innocent and that there would be no investigation.

In a statement Saturday the Law Association corrected Jeremie's statement to the House on the issue of the affidavit being held as "scandalous and irrelevant", pointing out that he failed to disclose that the Privy Council, in affirming the Court of Appeal's decision, did so on the grounds that the material contained in the affidavit was irrelevant, not scandalous, as the Appeal Court had said.

It reiterated the Privy Council's statement in Paragraph 21 of its decision: "It is on grounds of irrelevance, rather than that of any inconvenience or embarrassment to the prime minister that the board considers that the decision of the Court of Appeal should be affirmed."

The Association also noted with concern that Permanand, a sitting member of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC), should have made "public and derogatory statements concerning the decision of Mr Justice Narine."

Permanand said on the TV6 Morning Edition program that Justice Narine was wrong to have ordered the affidavit be sent to the DPP and the CoP since legally it does not exist.

In the detailed statement Law Association President, Martin Daly, said judges and the administration of justice were subject to a genuine exercise of the right to criticise.

Daly added that according to the standing orders of the House of Representatives Members of Parliament are prohibited from criticising a judge except when a motion is moved for that purpose.

Daly called Jeremie attack on Justice Narine an "unprecedented step". He said, “The fact that the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council held that the document should be struck out, and removed from the record, did not preclude the use of the affidavit after the order for striking out and removal had been made.”

He said Narine had jurisdiction to have directed that the contents of the affidavit be referred to the police chief and the DPP. “Indeed, to do otherwise would arguably be contrary to the role of a judge as the guardian of the rule of law,” Daly added.

He said it is an established practice for judges to refer to the DPP and/or the Commissioner, matters which are of concern to the court, calling it an important aspect of a judge’s inherent jurisdiction and duty to maintain the rule of law.

“It was our considered view that the Attorney General was wrong in law...to suggest to the House that Mr Justice Narine had defied the order of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council.

“While the affidavit in question had been struck out and removed from the record, that did not preclude the learned judge, if he thought it necessary, from dealing with it in the way that he did.”

Daly said the association is also disturbed that a sitting member of the JLSC should have made public statements concerning the decision of Narine.

The association also said that while it is "open to any person to agree or disagree with the decision of Justice Narine", the manner of expressing disagreement was important because of the inability of the judge to respond given ethical considerations.

He added that it is "generally undesirable for a judge to respond to criticism of her or his own actions by appearing in the news media...(to) ensure the dignity of the administration of justice, to prevent interference with pending litigation and to reaffirm the commitment to an independent judiciary dedicated to making decisions based on facts and law as presented in court".