Judge did nothing wrong: Kamla

Kamla Persad-Bissessar is defending the right of Herbert Volney to leave his job as a judge and run as a candidate for the United National Congress (UNC) in the May 24 general election.

Volney's decision has sparked a storm with both Prime Minister Patrick Manning and the Chief Justice suggesting that it was wrong.

Read the story: Manning suggests UNC interfered in independence of Judiciary
Read the story: CJ says Judge must not "entertain" private discussion with political party

Speaking with reporters at the Reinzi Complex Thursday, the UNC leader said Volney was within his constitutional rights to have a political view. And she noted he expressed his views only after he quit.

She also spoke of other circumstances where judges have had political connections.

"I remember Justice Lucky was offered as a People’s National Movement (PNM) candidate for president while he was a sitting judge. He did not resign and he went back, if I recall, to serve on the bench.

"But I am not saying because you did it, we are doing it. That’s not my point. My point is it is within the constitutional right of the judge," she said.

The UNC leader also had a question for Manning based on a statement he made on the political platform that suggested he knows what judges are thinking.

"Several questions arose to statements made by Mr Manning. He speaks about judges rejoicing, how does he know that? Is he speaking to judges too?" she asked.

Persad-Bissessar admitted that Volney is not a member of the party and that the UNC constitution states that a person must be a financial member of the party for at least one year before he can offer himself as a candidate.

She referred reporters to the case of Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and others vs the United National Congress in 2001 about the use of the party's symbol, noting that the High Court took "the firm view that the party was in its rights" to send the names of candidates to the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC).

She said it is not for the EBC to interpret the party’s constitution "and that judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal."