Thursday July 29th, 2010
- Last update:2 hours 3 min ago
Football
Cricket
Power, flashing lights not for me—CJ Archie
Published: 17 Sep 2009
Students view the ceremonial opening of the law term from the Hall of Justice. Photo: Keith Matthews
Chief Justice Ivor Archie broke with tradition yesterday, and instead of focusing on statistics and problems facing the judiciary, he took a dig at the draft constitution, which if implemented, would strip the judiciary of its independence.
Archie made it quite clear that his comments must not be construed as a personal criticism of anyone, including the author of the draft constitution. But he was extremely concerned that such a document, if approved, could mean that the judiciary would not be seen as being independent from the executive. He insisted to a packed Convocation Hall of the Hall of Justice that “power, pomp, status and flashing lights hold no allure for me, and the burdens of office are onerous.”
When Archie completed his 50-minute address, he got a standing ovation from the packed hall. Archie spoke at the ceremonial opening of the new law term. While he was knocking the proposed draft constitution, Attorney General John Jeremie had a concerned look on his face. Afterwards, he told the media that Archie’s speech was a good one. President of the Law Association, Martin Daly, SC, offered no comment when approached. Archie expressed concern when he read some of the provisions of the draft constitution.
“The misunderstanding lies in the assumption of a false dichotomy between the judiciary’s judicial and administrative functions and the assumption that one can be independently exercised without the other,” he said. “The danger lies in the potential to gradually and systematically strip the judiciary of its independence, and the citizens of their protection through ordinary or subordinate legislation requiring no special majority. “How, pray tell, can a constitution meaningfully provide for the judiciary to be independent only in the exercise of its judicial functions?”
The Chief Justice was most concerned that a proposed Minister of Justice would have control of administrative matters relating to the judiciary.
“How, where and by whom?” Archie asked.
“How is the Chief Justice to be responsible, and therefore accountable, for that which he does not control?”
Archie said it was proposed that the permanent secretary for the judiciary, who would be appointed by the executive president, would report to the Minister of Justice and not to the Chief Justice.
“Outside of the construction of buildings, which is the only pertinent example cited thus far, it is difficult to think of any other aspect of court administration that could be safely devolved from the judiciary without impinging on its independence,” he said.
Archie said the most worrisome clause was the one which gives Parliament the power to confer on any court, any part of the jurisdiction and powers conferred on the High Court by the constitution, or any other law.
“It requires no special majority, nor does it require that the new court or courts enjoy the constitutional protections designed to ensure the independence of the Supreme Court,” he said.
Archie was also fearful that judicial review matters could be wiped away if the new constitution comes into existence. The new constitution, Archie argued, would mean that the CJ would no longer be a member of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.
Archie said there was an unfortunate tendency to shoot the messenger, instead of analysing the message.
Admitting that he craved for a simple life, Archie said he was only interested in making a difference and contributing to the national good.
Well Manning will be looking
Well Manning will be looking for a new CJ now. Ha Ha ha ha!!!!!!
What fascinates me and
What fascinates me and scares me while at the same time worries me is a sense I am getting, based on all the comments I have been reading, that Trini are prepared to sit back and watch any battle among the different arms of government as if is a wrestling match they pay money to see. Everybody like all they doing is waiting to see Manning's response while warning Archie to remember to duck. I truly hope that people listen intently to what is being said and make their minds up for at the end of the day it is the people who should decide who is right. The audience get to vote like in one ah dem dotish American talent show.
Will the people do that? That is what fascinates, scares and worries me.
'Ah-chee buck them up', sang
'Ah-chee buck them up', sang a group of Barbadian calypsonians back in the 1960s. I'm sure they were not referring to our Honourable Chief Justice, since he probably wasn't ever born yet.
ajfyzabadbutlertown
Thank you Sir, at last an
Thank you Sir, at last an instituion has stood up and is not afraid to be counted!
Please speak your truths loud and clearly, more and more, so as to raise the consiousness of this country.
As President Robinson told us some time ago "streams turn into rivers into seas".
We must be vigilant.
And he also warned us about
And he also warned us about a "creeping dictatorship"; now it's leapfrogged over all intermediate stages straight into galopping pace as it comes around the final bend. Maybe Harribanse had warned him about it and he misinterpreted the vision from the seance. And now he is still holding that "still tongue" in spite of everything.
I thought someone make the
I thought someone make the guardian shut down online again, could not get on here all day.
Ryan4Party
Miles wake up! You sound
Miles wake up!
You sound like one of Jeremy boys.
Here's the irony in the
Here's the irony in the Chief Justice delivering his statement in a public forum: The role of the judiciary is to rule on the legality of law as passed by the legislature / parliament. One of the first lessons one learns in any basic introduction to the study of law and in particular constitutional law is that the sole role of the Members of the judiciary, especially the Chief Justice of a nation is to uphold the "letter of the law", to interpret and rule on the applicability of the law in a given situation or set of situations. It is a basic tenant of law in a free and democratic society (which I assume that Trinidad and Tobago is) for the judiciary to refrain from entering into the political realm, i.e. the dealings of the legislature / parliament. If the Chief Justice wishes to comment so forcefully on the proposed changes to the constitution then he should resign and run for political office. In terms of custom and tradition, what the Chief Justice has done is inexcusable in a "free and democratic society". As Chief Justice, he must know that in parliamentary democracies there are numerous precedents of judges speaking out against legislative change, however in such circumstances judges including Chief Justices do the right think and resign their post prior to or immediately after entering into the realm of commenting on significant legislative changes such as one's Constitution. If the Chief Justice wishes to have his cake and eat it to, then the customary and right thing for him to do is to suck it up, to take it on the chin, or as stated, resign. Surely there are more savvy ways to get his message across than to broadcast it for the entire nation and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Let us for one moment thing, what would happen if legislators were to enter the world of the judiciary and pounce on decisions of the Chief Justice by stating in significant public forums that his interpretation of the law as we the legislators intended it is all wrong.
I rather think and having dealt with some of the legal minds of Trinidad and Tobago, the real issue is one of gamesmanship being played out by politicians, presidents and the judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago. The Chief Justice concern has more to do with power and not what is truly in the best interest of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. He has done what all politicians do, look out for their constituents. He has played the game of a politician and he has done it well. Trinidadians: Elect the Chief Justice for Prime Minister, President and as Chief Justice!
There are many instances of
There are many instances of the judiciary criticising the Constitution. Case in point, the recent judgement by the judiciary critiquing the fact that the Constitution was illegal from the day it was written by naming the award The Trinity Cross. That was direct criticism of a standing Constitution (or Constitution-in-effect, if you will). The criticism came not only from local courts but also the Privy Council.
The proposed Constitution is not law, and according to Pa-trick is not even a Draft Constitution, more of a 'working document' (whatever the hell that is!). To criticise a document proposing such draconian changes that set us back 'hundreds of years' and erode the right of all the public, is not only right, but necessary!
There is no law that prevents a judge from doing these things, only convention and the need to be seen as totally objective in their positions. Convention is not, and never was, a law. It is merely a position adopted and maintained through habit, for whatever reasons. This is why one magistrate was asked to recuse herself in a trial because she sat on the board of a foundation created for a deceased PNM member; coincidently she was overseeing a case in which an Opposition member is the defendant. You will recall she refused to do so.
As for the judge who criticised the CCJ, you will realise that what he did was not illegal. Neither was what Archie did.
Jumbie's Watch
I am not a lawyer, but I
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that in the present situation where the Legislative arm of the Nation has been running amok in the absence of a meaningful Opposition and the Office of the President seems damaged beyond repair, it remains for the last standing bastion of democracy to stand up for the rights of the People. And as the Head and spokesman of the Judiciary the Chief Justice is quite right as a conscientious Public figure and an apparent true Christian, to raise all general matters of genuine concern, without fear or favour on such occasions. As the People's Chief Justice, he has to be the people's conscience and must share with us his vast knowledge, legal and ethical learning and experience and must not remain cloistered.
And we should be grateful for his courage to try to enlighten the population on the ramifications and implications of this bastard constitutional reform document that is being shoved down the people's throats, since the average citizen would not know or appreciate the full import of what is being proposed in the document.
With an Independent Judiciary headed by an independent-minded CJ, there might still be hope for saving T&T from that portended "creeping dictatorship" which is now assuming a galloping pace.
A man so noble, ethical and
A man so noble, ethical and educated would have done the right thing and give up the trappings of his office and the power that comes with it and resign. The interesting thing is this, on the assumption that your understanding of the Chief Justice is correct, and in keeping with your logic, were he to do as I suggest, he would be anointed Prime Minister and President of Trinidad and Tobago for life. Hence, my position that he should enter the political game and run for office if he wants to make a real change and to quote you: "enlighten the population on the ramifications and implications of this bastard constitutional reform document that is being shoved down the people's throats, since the average citizen would not know or appreciate the full import of what is being proposed in the document".
"The Guard". I recall an old
"The Guard". I recall an old calypso with the title "who would guard the guards". I cannot now recall the calypsonian. It is my humble opinion that the right to challenge actions of State through Constitutional Motions is ensuring that an Institution does exists to "guard the guards" and the CJ is the Head of that Institution. Accordingly it is well within his function to comment on any move by the Government to compromise or remove "the guard". How could this be deemed as being politically motivated?
dvillageman
Surely, the judiciary itself
Surely, the judiciary itself is an institution with its own set of guards; the chief justice being the chief guard! So who guards these guards, i.e. the judiciary? This my friend is the beauty of the system of checks and balances as envisioned by the founding fathers and so extensively quoted by the Chief Justice in his address. It is exactly for reasons such as this that they felt under no circumstance should the powers at be (that being the executive, the legislative or the judiciary) encroach or appear to encroach on the responsibilities of each other. To do otherwise is to violate one of the sacred principles of your legal system; that being that justice must be perceived to be done. The chief justice (AKA the Chief Guard) in this instance, has played his card can he be trusted were a constitutional motion be brought before his court. Rationale minds thing not.
Surely, the judiciary itself
Surely, the judiciary itself is an institution with its own set of guards; the chief justice being the chief guard! So who guards these guards, i.e. the judiciary? This my friend is the beauty of the system of checks and balances as envisioned by the founding fathers and so extensively quoted by the Chief Justice in his address. It is exactly for reasons such as this that they felt under no circumstance should the powers at be (that being the executive, the legislative or the judiciary) encroach or appear to encroach on the responsibilities of each other. To do otherwise is to violate one of the sacred principles of your legal system; that being that justice must be perceived to be done. The chief justice (AKA the Chief Guard) in this instance, has played his card can he be trusted were a constitutional motion be brought before his court. Rationale minds thing not.
Exactly, and the avenue used
Exactly, and the avenue used by the Chief Justice was a public forum, he could have diplomatically invited or caused a Constitutional Motion to be brought forward, rather he acted like a politician.
Hats off to Mr. Archie, for
Hats off to Mr. Archie, for standing up for our independence, and by extention the independence of the judiciary.
However, you should note that those who DARE oppose THE GREAT MR. MANNING have all been punished..
I do wish you well Sir.!!
triniman65 Mr.
triniman65
Mr. Archie,It is with the greatest admiration I forward
this comment, I salute you sir, on your Courage,and
Independence for speaking out on this most important
subject, (The Draft Constitution)knowing that you are
now will surely feel the Wrath of the Anointed One.
I thank you Sir,for reviving my confidence in the some
of the intellectuals in our society.
Well, Well, Well, it looks
Well, Well, Well, it looks like Manning and his Puppet Jeremy, "bounce dey head" when they railroaded Sharma out of office to put one of their kind there. Well, Well, Well, it looks like Archie "buck them up". Manning and his cabal need to get off their power trips and do the job that they are being paid to do, or leave office. They need to efficiently run the country, using taxpayers' money.
it's the tyranny of the CJ
it's the tyranny of the CJ that's what it is...I can hear Manning now.
It is very humble for the CJ
It is very humble for the CJ not to want flashing lights, but sometimes these are necessary, as the situation warrants.
I myself have been annoyed or inconvenienced when these might have been abused. On one occasion I was nearly dangerously forced off the road for by an outrider escorting a President in a hurry, probably to attend the races or something, and there have been other occasions. Also, a few years ago I was subjected to deafening sirens of a vehicle exiting from Twin Towers, carrying what must have been some extraordinary minister who I concluded was on the way home to lunch as this took place regularly around the same time of the day.
The indiscriminate use of sirens and flashing lights can only serve to irk ordinary citizens and lead to disaffection. So, hats off to you Mr CJ, to use these trappings of office only when necessary.
Archie better watch heself,
Archie better watch heself, he might not be the CJ soon.
Yes, we should commend CJ
Yes, we should commend CJ Archie for his stand. However, he may end up getting the same 'furious' comments as were flung at Justice Narine this week..
Lordie, in the end, all our fair-minded and talented justice personnel may end up in the other islands like the Bahamas, where their talents are more appreciated.
....well said Mr. CJ....we
....well said Mr. CJ....we can only hope that your words would provoke serious debate over the PM's lust for absolute power....
Well spoken Mr CJ. Manning
Well spoken Mr CJ. Manning must rue the day he agreed to your appointment; maybe he did not realise you are your own man with an independent mind ready to dispense justice without fear or favour. As long as you don't cross the line, he can't touch you or hound you out of office, like your predecessor.
Now who will Jeremy complain to about your pronouncements? The lame-duck President who Jack says a birdie whistled into his ear was contemplating doing the right ching, finally?
Pity they did not appoint the young senior superintendent of police as COP as recommended. Talk was he was also independent-minded as well, just as the toothless COP they tried to move some years ago. At least they could have given the young man a fixed contract to prove himself. In many countries senior appointments in public service are made on fixed term contracts. That way incumbents have to perform and show results. Maybe this might be a good area for constitutional reform, with all necessary safeguards against political interference, spite or vindictiveness.
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE -
1) When the previous CJ Sharma mentioned this it was rejected by PNM as racial.
2) When the Law Association spoke out it was deemed political by PNM.
3) Now CJ Archie, who is African and does not appear to have any political bias, expresses the same concern.
4) These are also the fears in terms of the CCJ.
What price justice? It is
What price justice?
It is known, from observations in the courts, and the shenanigans of the judiciary, that justice comes at a high price, not necessarily financially. Many a time we have seen culprits walk because of some demented opinion by a magistrate or judge... case in point, the Brad Boyce trial.
It is now apparent that we, the public, are to pay an even heavier price, this time through inadequate finances.
The Judiciary requested some 349 million dollars for the running of the entire court system... the Manning government granted a whopping $42.5 M. Some 302 millions less!
I can imagine the horror now as simple things like court transcripts await budget allocations for paper to print them on, or to pay salaries of those who work within the system.
According to Chief Justice Archie, while some $349 million was requested, only $42.5 million was received and this would affect how the judiciary runs its affairs for the new session. This disclosure caused those in attendance to gasp with many shaking their heads in amazement.
Now hold on... that's not the only amazing thing to happen. Don't rush meh!
Speaking to reporters following Justice Archie's address, Attorney General John Jeremie, who viewed the entire proceedings, said: "It is a difficult year, there have been cuts in budgets. The Prime Minister's Office has been cut by 50 per cent. I am not sure what aspect of the budget was reduced and as a result some projects have been phased and this applies to all ministries."
* Amazing statement, especially since some $2 BILLION!!! were found to pay for 4 helicopters that are not needed.
* Amazing statement, especially since some $700 MILLIONS!!! have been spent on a 'stadium' as yet half uncompleted and no end in sight, and no final cost determined... money flung as it were, down a fast running drain.
* Amazing statement, considering that some $400 MILLIONS have been found to pay for 4 ferries to run from San Fernando to Port of Spain as water taxis.
* Amazing statement, especially since $11 MILLIONS have been found to pay for repair and refurbishment to the Prime Minister's residence that only last year cost $148 M.
* Amazing statement, especially since the Government spent $100 MILLIONS on funding to private health facilities.
Me, I am a mere observer... but I can't help thinking 'what price justice?'
Jumbie's Watch
The 305 million not given to
The 305 million not given to the judiciary probably went to the "fly-by-night" company that got the contract on the home fax number via Port of Spain/Malaysia/Port of Spain. The money went whoooosh! Just so!
If ever a Nation's
If ever a Nation's democratic nation's judiciary was being strangled, this is the most tangible evidence of it. The $42 Million is clearly insulting not just to the judiciary but all sensible people in Trinidad & Tobago.
Is that the respect your judiciary deserves, at a time when there is such a stinking break-down of law and order in your Republic? We at The Freedom Chambers refuse to accept such a glaring attempted demolition of the most fundamental pillar of our democracy.
CJ Archie is a man of wisdom. The new draft Constitution was always an attempt to destroy our democracy. CJ Archie's analysis endorses the view of all who knew what the agenda was.
The engineers of the so called new Constitution have been exposed for what they are. They have clearly been fashioning a dictatorship. Whilst CJ Archie has not used the 'D' word - that is exactly what his words point to.
Trinbagonians must unite now - or forever subject their descendants to tyranny and oppression! Put away your tribal loyalties - unite for your children and their children. Learn from Zimbabwe.
Freedom Chambers
www.freedomchambers.com
Interesting!
Interesting!
Is this guy for real? Who
Is this guy for real?
Who does this Archie person thinks he is to question the draft constitution, in the interest of the people? Your days are numbered Mr Archie. Mark my words.
Anyone who seems to question anything in this twin island state is deemed "enemy of the state" and is dealt with.
Standing up for your rights or the rights of others, has its price. Quite often, you are left standing all alone.
You do have cojones Mr Archie, I must give you credit for that.
http://dsaltsman.blogspot.com/
Respectable Sir, In the
Respectable Sir, In the character as The Chief Justice. I congratulate you.You are the best example for the conduct of others.that merit has been your title to the privileges, and on you our favors have not been undeservedly bestowed.
Archie, we need people like
Archie, we need people like you. The govt will destroy institutions if they are allowed to, We need challenge them legally all the way but this needs funds. Anyway to get the public to donate to a legal fund for constitution challenges?