Senior Reporter
anna-lisa.paul@guardian.co.tt
Former Chief Magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar yesterday scored a major victory against Chief Justice Ivor Archie, after the Court of Appeal ruled that she was “coerced and forced out of office” by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) and that her resignation was illegally obtained and should be expunged from the President’s records.
During a virtual hearing, Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Nolan Bereaux and Alice Yorke-Soo Hon delivered separate but unanimous decisions in the matter.
In reading the court’s orders and subsequent declarations, the three upheld the appeal by Ayers-Caesar that she had been pressured into resigning as a High Court Judge in 2017.
Ayers-Caesar sued the JLSC, which has the authority to appoint and discipline judicial officers, and is headed by CJ Archie.
Among the declarations announced yesterday was that the decision of the commission on April 27, 2017, that Ayers-Caesar be given the option of withdrawing from the High Court bench and returning to the magistracy to discharge her professional responsibilities—and in the event she refused to withdraw, the commission would consider instituting disciplinary action in accordance with Section 137 of the Constitution, was ultra vires and should be declared null and void.
Bereaux read, “A declaration that the decision of 27th April, 2017, of the commission and the communication of that decision to Ayers-Caesar J amounted to illegal conduct by the commission because it was intended to threaten, coerce and pressure Ayers-Caesar J into resigning from office, contrary to its powers under section 137 (3) of the Constitution.
“The result of such conduct was that Ayers Caesar J was coerced and forced out of office, a form of removal not permitted by the Constitution.”
Ruling that Ayers-Caesar continues to hold the office of Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago, “because her purported letter of resignation was procured by the illegal conduct of the commission and was null void and of no effect,” the judges also agreed that, “the letter of 27th April addressed to His Excellency the President by Ayers Caesar J was of no effect and must be expunged from the records of the President.”
They said the coercing and pressuring of Ayers-Caesar into resigning her office, “amounted to removal from office otherwise than in accordance with section 137 (3) of the Constitution,” which denied Ayers-Caesar the protection of the law contrary to Section 4 (b) of the Constitution.
The judges also dismissed the JLSC’s counter notice of appeal.
Compensation is to be assessed by a judge of the High Court for breach of Ayers-Caesar’s constitutional rights under Section 4 (b).
Ayers-Caesar, who was appointed a judge on April 12, 2017, resigned 15 days later amidst public outrage regarding the number of unfinished cases she left behind in the Magistrates’ Court, which was initially said to be 28 but was later changed to 53.
Bereaux’s ruling read, “The trial judge erred. The decision of the commission to convey to Ayers-Caesar J that if she failed to resign as a High Court judge, the commission would consider disciplinary action, was contrary to section 137 of the Constitution and unlawful. This illegal threat had the effect of putting unlawful pressure on Ayers-Caesar J and forced her to resign her office.”
Ayers-Caesar had accused the JLSC of acting unlawfully in seeking her resignation as a judge; acting unlawfully to procure her resignation; and acting unlawfully in treating as effective, her consequent purported resignation.
She claimed she was pressured by the JLSC to resign, in that she was told to sign an already prepared resignation letter and related press release, or her appointment would be revoked by the President.
In her legal challenge, Ayers-Caesar asked that her purported resignation be set aside and she be reinstated as a judge and compensated, saying her “resignation as a judge” was orchestrated.
Ayers-Caesar resigned on April 27, 2017, after meeting with the CJ.
Following the ruling, Maharaj SC said Ayers-Caesar was constrained in speaking with the media, as she remains a High Court judge and would be unable to comment.
Underscoring that this was one of the most important decisions to be handed down by a Commonwealth Court, Maharaj explained, “It decided that a judge of the Supreme Court is guaranteed independence to resist pressure from anyone, including a Chief Justice, a Prime Minister or a Leader of the Opposition, because a judge of the Supreme Court, under the Constitution of T&T, enjoys security of tenure and in order to remove a judge, the Constitution provides a special procedure for the removal of the judge and the judge would then have an appeal directly to the Privy Council to decide whether a commission appointed by the President for the removal of the judge, was right or wrong.”
Maharaj added, “The Judiciary, under the Constitution of T&T, is the guardian of the rights of the people, which meant that whether the Executive Arm of the State or the Legislative Arm of the State, or even the Judicial Arm of the State, violates any rights of any individual in T&T, the Judiciary has the power to declare those contraventions illegal and award compensation. So if it is that the judiciary is not independent and does not have security of tenure, their independence and the independence of their judgement could be affected by political pressure or by any other pressure.”
Ayers-Caesar was represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, and Ronnie Bissessar, SC.
Attorneys Russell Martineau, SC, Deborah Peake SC, Ian Benjamin SC and Ian Roach appeared for the JLSC.