The Law Association has passed a no-confidence motion in Attorney General John Jeremie concerning his battle with former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Geoffrey Henderson. In a well-attended special meeting of the association at the Hall of Justice, Port-of-Spain, yesterday, lawyers voted 106-82 in favour of the motion that they have absolutely no confidence in Jeremie, who was appointed AG on May 29 for a second time. The results were announced by Martin Daly, SC, president of the Law Association at 7.20 pm on the steps of the Hall of Justice. The lawyers, by a vote of 121-67, condemned in the strongest manner, the reported attempts by Jeremie to improperly and illegally intefere with criminal prosecutions for political purposes.
The lawyers, by a vote of 127-59, condemned in the strongest manner, the reported attempts by Jeremie to undermine and threaten the constitutional independence in the office of DPP. Daly told the media: "Now that the members have expressed themselves, this is now the view of the Law Association. We have nothing to say beyond what our members have said in this motion. "I don't think that the Law Association is going to say anything, other than what was done today. I would be surprised if the Council would say anything more on this matter at this stage." Daly said 16 members of the profession spoke, among them senior members of the Bar. He said lawyers spoke for and against the motion. He did admit that some members raised contentious matters, which were subsequently withdrawn. He asked those members not to repeat them outside the meeting, but at least three senior lawyers spoke with reporters outside the courthouse.
"We had a very orderly meeting, as president, I am very proud that the association conducted the meeting without any bacchanal," Daly said. Dana Seetahal, SC, did not think there was enough evidence before the association to justify the motion, in particular the one which made mention of political interference. She said: "You can't have a motion which talks about reported attempts, you can't condemn reported attempts, you either condemn attempts, or nothing. That motion did not fit well, but I understand the intention of the motion." Seetahal felt Jeremie was carrying on the tradition of his predecessors in terms of how he chose to behave. She did not think a no-confidence motion was necessary.
Seetahal pointed out that her briefs came from the DPP and not the AG. Israel Khan, SC, a defender of the AG, said the lawyers made a mountain out of a molehill. "It was a storm in a tea cup," he added. When asked what was next, a disappointed Khan said: "We would go to court, go to cocktail parties, and go to Bar dinners, that's about it. I am not disappointed in the Law Association, I am disappointed in the young lawyers. It is the senior lawyers who spoke on behalf of the Attorney General. It was a very good debate, a level-headed debate, but the votes indicated something else."
Khan said the country should be happy with Jeremie. "The persons who should be fearful of this attorney general are those involved in crimes and corruption, especially white-collar crimes. The resolution is based on hearsay evidence which appeared in a newspaper," he said.
Khan said the AG never directed the DPP whom to charge. "He said the Government had expended a lot of money and why you are not charging these people? What are you doing? The DPP said he was going to charge when he is ready to charge, and that was the end of that. We have a strong DPP and a strong AG." Desmond Allum, SC, said he does not feel anything further would happen. He said if the association was dealing with a more sensitive AG, perhaps he would resign. "That was too much to expect from this attorney general," he said.
