Four of the sev­en Se­nior Coun­sel who were present at Wednes­day's spe­cial meet­ing of the Law As­so­ci­a­tion vot­ed against the no-con­fi­dence mo­tion in At­tor­ney Gen­er­al John Je­re­mie.

In a state­ment is­sued yes­ter­day, Is­rael Khan, SC, said four se­nior lawyers–Gilbert Pe­ter­son, Dana See­ta­hal, Regi­nald Ar­mour and him­self– in­di­cat­ed that there was no ba­sis to sup­port a mo­tion of no con­fi­dence in the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al. They said the ten­sion be­tween the of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions and the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al was not new and ex­ist­ed among sev­er­al for­mer at­tor­neys gen­er­al and DPPs.

They al­so found there was in­suf­fi­cient ev­i­dence to sup­port a mo­tion of no con­fi­dence. They ar­gued that the let­ters which were pub­lished in the news­pa­pers were ex­changed pri­or to the Court of Ap­peal judg­ment in the ap­peal of the State ver­sus Seero­mani Maraj-Narayns­ingh and El­ton Ra­masir which set­tled the re­la­tion­ship be­tween the of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al and the DPP.

Khan said Karl Hud­son-Phillips, QC, al­so ex­pressed con­cern over the mo­tion, as well as oth­ers who could not at­tend be­cause of pri­or com­mit­ments. "It is re­gret­table that de­spite the se­ri­ous con­cerns ex­pressed by se­nior and very dis­tin­guished mem­bers of the pro­fes­sion, the mo­tion was still car­ried," Khan added. The Law As­so­ci­a­tion, by a vote of 106-82, passed a mo­tion of no con­fi­dence in the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al.