Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:12 hours 57 min ago
Law Association:
Jeremie wrong to attack judge
Published: 20 Sep 2009
The Law Association has come out in defence of Justice Rajendra Narine, saying both the Attorney General, John Jeremie, and retired Justice Jean Permanand, a member of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC), were wrong in their criticisms of him. In a five-page statement issued yesterday, Martin Daly, SC, President of the association, said judges and the administration of justice were subject to a genuine exercise of the right to criticise. Daly said the association noted that the standing orders of the House of Representatives provided that except for a motion moved for that purpose, Members of Parliament were prohibited from criticising judges, among others.
Daly said Jeremie took the unprecedented step of attacking the decision of Justice Narine in his statement to Parliament, last Monday. Jeremie was critical of Narine who, days before, directed that a controversial affidavit of Jamaat Al Muslimeen leader, Yasin Abu Bakr, be sent to the acting Commissioner of Police and the acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), to determine if there was really a deal between Bakr and Prime Minister Patrick Manning, prior to the 2002 general election. Daly added: “The fact that the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council held that the document should be struck out, and removed from the record, did not preclude the use of the affidavit after the order for striking out and removal had been made.” He said Narine had jurisdiction to have directed that the contents of the affidavit be referred to the Commissioner and the DPP.
“Indeed, to do otherwise would arguably be contrary to the role of a judge as the guardian of the rule of law,” Daly added. The association’s president said it was not unusual for judges to refer to the DPP and/or the Commissioner, matters which were of concern to the court for the appropriate investigation. This, he said, was an established practice, and was an important aspect of a judge’s inherent jurisdiction and duty to maintain the rule of law. It would be wrong to form any conclusion on the truth of the allegations. Daly added: “It was our considered view that the Attorney General was wrong in law, as indicated above by reference to case law, to suggest to the House that Mr Justice Narine had defied the order of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council.
“While the affidavit in question had been struck out and removed from the record, that did not preclude the learned judge, if he thought it necessary, from dealing with it in the way that he did.” Daly said the association was also disturbed that a sitting member of the JLSC (former Justice Jean Permanand), should have made public statements concerning the decision of Narine. In light of the fact that the Attorney General sent a letter to Chief Justice Ivor Archie about Narine, the Chief Justice may refer it to the JLSC, or consult his colleagues on that commission, he being the chairman. “In addition, the case law cited runs contrary to the view expressed by the member, that the affidavit of Mr Abu Bakr did not exist legally. The Council wishes to make it clear that it deplores ill-considered remarks against any sitting judge,” Daly warned.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You didn't need to be a
You didn't need to be a lawyer to come to those conclusions after reading what the High Court did not say and and what the Privy did and did not say in their respective rulings. Even a school child could have told Jeremie he should have engaged brain before mouth and consulted a knowledgeable lawyer before putting his foot in it. Another motion of no confidence in the AG or will he do the decent thing? Maybe he could take his own advice and go back to Law School, but not as a teacher this time. And he could take Jean with him, now that she has compromised her own position on the JLSC, so she can do a refresher course and retrain.
It would be interesting to see what Mr AG wrote to the CJ and the reply he receives from the learned gentleman. No doubt Jeremie's letter would be along the same lines of the "quite frankly" verbal diahorrea that he kept throwing at former DPP Henderson. Hope a newspaper gets hold of the new exchanges and publishes them, unless the CJ decides not to dignify the crap with a reply and do an Eric Williams and leave the leave the letter unopened. Worse yet the CJ might uncharacteristically lose his cool and shred the letter or recycle it and put it to other use given the lack of funds for the Judiciary in the Budget.
Despite the length of the
Despite the length of the following, I sincerely hope that everyone will read it. It is an excerpt of a speech by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (arguably the oldest and most mature judicial system in the world). It directly references what is happening in Trinidad at the moment.
First, because when we speak of judicial independence, and then speak of the rule of law, we tend to make it sound as if we have two separate concepts, when they are as closely intertwined as a mutually dependent and loving couple after many years of marriage, where one simply cannot survive without the other. And second, to remind us that we should never take either judicial dependence or the rule of law for granted.
The places where things have gone wrong include countries which believed that they were mature democracies, where these things did not and could not happen, but they did. But they did.
…There was, of course, no physical intimidation, no threat to security of judicial tenure, none of the extremes of tyranny. But it is the first steps which have to be watched. The first incursion by the executive into impropriety. The first compromise by the judiciary with principle. We are all familiar with the employee who steals from his employer. The most difficult time is the first time the hand goes into the till. After that, each successive time is less difficult. The problem with the phrase “eternal vigilance” is that it appears to focus on the long term. But the focus is the immediate, today, every day. The insidious dangers are no less threatening than the obvious ones, and for the judiciary to acquiesce in the first small, even tiny, steps, may ultimately be terminal.
…In a democratic country all power, however exercised in the community, must be founded on the rule of law. Therefore each and every exercise of political power must be accountable not only to the electorate at the ballot box, when elections take place, but also and at all times to the rule of law. Independent professions protect it. Independent press and media protect it.
Ultimately, however, it is the judges who are guardians of the rule of law. That is their prime responsibility. They have a particular responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of each citizen, as well as the integrity of the constitution by which those rights exist.
…Without independence, and without respect for judicial independence these desirable, indeed elementary facets of a civilised community, are threatened. At the same time, no individual, or group of individuals, nor even any judge, however high his office, has any dispensing power – that is, the power to set aside or disregard the law.
The absence of any dispensing power was, and remains, fundamental to the rule of law. Judges cannot dispense with it. Parliament itself cannot dispense with it. None of our democratic institutions may do so. They are, of course, entitled to change it.
The word, some of you will already have seen, but which you will all increasingly see, is “constitutionality”. It is a word with a great future. In other words, if the executive wished the legislature to pass such an outrageous Act, it should do so in language that was so plain, that the public conscience would be revolted, and the legislation fail, or if passed, the price would be paid at the next election.
It is therefore fundamental that there are no circumstances in which the executive may even appear to tell judges how cases should be decided. Even when the public agrees with the executive at the particular time in relation to the particular point, future public confidence that justice will be done impartially and independently will be eroded. In the end, I firmly believe that the public, even if dissatisfied with an individual decision in an individual case, wants its judiciary to be independent of the executive.
What I am driving at is that the judiciary has an institutional responsibility to ensure that inefficiencies in the legal system do not, as Lord Denning once remarked, “turn justice sour”. In 1215 when King John signed the great Magna Carta it was agreed, “To no-one will we deny or delay right or justice”. Over the centuries, our greatest writers have identified the consequences of inefficiency. In Hamlet, Shakespeare listed it among the “whips and scorns of time”. At the very start of Bleak House, Charles Dickens identified its ability to exhaust finances, patience, courage and hope. Can you imagine anything worse than exhaustion of hope? And if hope is exhausted through the process of litigation, or a long-delayed criminal trial, how can we, as judges, disclaim any responsibility for it?
Jumbie's Watch
The Freedom Chambers salutes
The Freedom Chambers salutes Jumbie for delivering the pearls from the wise in England. All we need fear now are unappreciative swine.
Let's all join in the fight for our freedom.. our children's freedom - from tyranny and oppression. It is your democracy .. our democracy. Do not let your beloved Nation become yet another Zimbabwe.
Many thanks Jumbie.
The Freedom Chambers
www.freedomchambers.com
Jumbie's Watch, Please
Jumbie's Watch,
Please provide the link to the speech if you can.
Thank you sincerely for this post, it is one of the most significant that I have read and so relevant to our current dilemna.
We may disregard it to our peril!
The speech is here. Jumbie's
The speech is here.
Jumbie's Watch
Chief Justice Archie was
Chief Justice Archie was right when he spoke out on the Draft Constitution. The response by JJ (John Jeremie, the joker) clearly shows political mischief at its second best, the best being the dotish response submitted after the Law Association condemned his clownish activities in Parliament.
“The PNM notes with concern recent developments which have seen the hijacking of the once venerable Law Association by a bunch of political opportunists bent on engaging the duly elected Government in political warfare...”
Yes, all signs point even more strongly to a trotting dictatorship, but one that is slyly being implemented.
There is, of course, "no physical intimidation, no threat to security of judicial tenure, none of the extremes of tyranny". But the first steps are already seen, and lately the creeping has become a trot. Pretty soon, we'll be galloping to the Executive Presidency.
The PNM's position that JJ's response was approved by the Speaker is a defence as weak as the bowels in a severe diarrhoea attack. The Speaker is not impartial and is in fact, a sitting member of the PNM. His rulings in Parliament have been so biased that the Opposition has all but given up in getting a fair shake.
The PNM and JJ ought to be thankful that judges are ' too reticent' (Anand Ramlogan) and not as outspoken as in England. JJ might be blushing, even with skin of crapaud leather.
Jumbie's Watch
...one cannot help wonder
...one cannot help wonder just what does Jean Permanand have for brains...according to her reasoning, it you don't see it on TV, it didn't happen....(maybe she looking for some sort of extra income from some sort of appointment).....as for JJ, no surprise here, just his master's voice, his duties as Manning's legal bully and plotter of dirty tricks has superseded his diplomatic duties...grin and bear it folks, we're paying big money for this parade of fools.....
Now we know why Mr Meddle
Now we know why Mr Meddle was brought back from London...
Jumbie's Watch
To quote the Guardian
To quote the Guardian newspaper:
Prime Minister Patrick Manning, who was seated next to Jeremie, was heard shouting across the floor: “The tyranny of the judge, that was what the problem is.”
Definition of a tyrant:
In modern usage, a tyrant carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls. ...
This is a personal attack on the learned judge, and should also be condemned!!!
I am surprised that the Law Association and fellow bloggers are allowing this one to slide.
Prime Minister Patrick Manning should be hauled before the judge for contempt!!!
Mr Logic, we were here all
Mr Logic, we were here all the time and several bloggers including myself responded the very day. See my own initial comments reproduced for your info & you can access the others by going back a bit to Sep't 15th:
Foul? Are we talking
Submitted by The Prince on 15 September 2009 - 3:27am.
Foul? Are we talking football here? Tyranny? But what irony! Hear who is talking. Careful the same judge don't bring you up for contempt of court, parliamentary privelege or not.
Anyhow, the AG seems to be missing the point or confusing the two issues deliberately with an intention to mislead the House and the Nation. Mr Speaker,sir, are you there? Send them to the Privileges Committee. Or is different strokes for different folks? The Privy Council ruled that the affidavit was irrelevant to/in the Jamaat's case, but separately seemed to think that the allegations contained therein merited investigation. While the High Court had also ruled the affidavit as inadmissible, they did not deal with the allegations, as these were not of direct relevance to the matter before them. But the PC went further and beyond. No more Privy Council in the next Constitution, they too farse and out of place!
Not too long ago the COP said that he investigates all reports of crime when the PM indirectly reported to the party's faithful that a year previously a threat was supposedly made on his life. And although no report was made, the COP promised to investigate immediately. Btw, what is the status of the investigation? In order to be consistent, and in keeping with his oath of office, the COP is duty-bound to investigate the matter referred to him by the learned judge, even if he does not get the evasive document personally.
Well, if this matter is engineered to to escape the law courts through the machinations of those in authority, there is still the People's Court. Let them decide at the ballot box as soon as a credible Opposition Party could be found. If not, heaven help us, because when the Constitution is re-written there will be a whole section on "Disrespect of the Executive President" and all you good folks out there better watch out. You would be hunted down by the chosen AG & the hand-picked DPP (just like the hand-picketd eunuchs in the Cabinet) and if you lucky, you'll be sent before the firing squad (SAUTT) after appearing before the Kangaroo Court, otherwise is life imprisonment, where life means life, no chance of early release. Check out how it works in Cuba. And remember, you've been warned: "and jail eh nice"!
The Prince - please do
The Prince - please do defend:-
Perhaps he was on sabbatical. You have brought him up to date. Everything should be o.k. now.
You spoon fed him though - made it easy.
well, Gardenia, I was only
well, Gardenia, I was only trying to be subtle. Seems you had a long-lie Sunday morning. Good for you, I can't seem to manage to stay in bed, even if I were sick.
Regards.
I am surprised that the Law
I am surprised that the Law Association and fellow bloggers are allowing this one to slide.
Use the search box and search for La Diva, Gardenia, Ryan4party, Fensic, Jumbie... the list is endless....
Jumbie's Watch
Thank you Jumbie's Watch:-
Thank you Jumbie's Watch:-
- speaking up for the team
It saves me a few finger tips.
G.
Here is the kind of top rate
Here is the kind of top rate leadership we have in this country – Is there anyone the PM is not having issues with?
Thanks Jumbie for
Thanks Jumbie for elucidating things for us and Prince and Ryan and of course Gardenia and others, who put things in good perspective with great English, Keep up the good work. I look forward to reading and participating. The CJ is my hero. Good man. He should be proud of himself and his staff and family should say: there is a good ethical man.
Mr. John Jeremie, was more
Mr. John Jeremie, was more than wrong, he showed his contempt for our Courts and Justice Narine. He also disrespected our Parliament when he regaled himself into our House of Power, with his prepared document and made his proclamation and imposed his sentence upon the head of Justice Narine, with his cheer-leader Patrick Manning right behind him.
Mr. Martin Daly speaking up for the people of this country and defending our rights is mandatory for the Law Association. We do not give you a choice. At times I felt that you were a bit slow or even not strong enough in your critiquing some of the 'power struggles' being imposed upon this country by our gov't in office.
Good to see The Law Association is on the same 'train wreck' with the majority of this country. We will not stand by idly while persons like our A.G. or his Master Manning run us into the ground. Mr. Jeremie did wrong and we have told him so in no uncertain terms.
Also I do agree with you that former Justice Jean Permanand spoke out of school. She has brought 'unwanted' attention to the JLSC, and her future credibility to both this Commissiokn and herself. Characteristics expected from persons sitting on such Commissions are integrity and ethics, and she has tainted hers. She should have exercised better judgement. I believe that it is prudent for her to step aside and vacate her position.
Some may say that Justice Narine made an error in judgement, and the Laws of the Land, or precedent setting may imply as such, but I support the step he took. Sometimes in this life we have to make a decision to go against the 'fray', stand alone, and face the consequences like a 'man'. Justice Narine is a seasoned legal mind and I believe that he made the decision with clearity and understood there could be fall-outs. I am sure he was prepared for some 'hell' to come his way.
This Abu Bakr-Patrick Manning alleged deal as documented in the Affidavit has caused this country more harm than we can tolerate. We need to know the truth, and if we have to bend a few guidelines to get to it, so be it.
I believe that the Law Association should look into steps that could be taken to 'discipline' this A.G. or impose 'sanctions' against him.
Well said, Gardenia. The way
Well said, Gardenia. The way you interpret, analyse and dissect the news and with such methodology, scrutiny and dispassion would make you an excellent political commentator or columnist. Keep up the good work.
Thanks - Much appreciated
Thanks - Much appreciated -
I do try. Are you being cheeky?
No sleep-in for me - flower gardening - Fall is in the air on this side of the pond.
G.
Me cheeky? Oh no. But good
Me cheeky? Oh no. But good to see you enjoying your garden and blooming flowers. As Voltaire once said "il faut cultiver votre jardin". I am not sure whether he was speaking literally or metaphorically. You never know with these philosophers, especially French ones. Whether he was referring to your back ground or your fore ground, or the fertility of your mind, either way you can't go wrong.
Long may your garden continue to bloom perenially with flowers and lilies of every specie exuding perfumes of unmatched fragrance with every single waft that bloys by.
Wrong as hell! The standing
Wrong as hell! The standing orders specifically says in section 10 that:-
"The conduct of the Governor, Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, or of judges or other persons engaged in the administration of justice shall not be raised except upon a substantive motion moved for the purpose; and in any amendment,
question to a Minister, or debate on a motion dealing with any other subject any reference to the conduct of any such person as aforesaid shall be out of order."
How could the Speaker allow this and the statement hurled by the Prime Minister "the tyranny of the judge" to pass? Is the judge a tyrant in court? Is the Prime Minister saying under the cloke (?) of parliamentary priviledge that there is a tyrant (who was recently elevated to the court of appeal) operating in the courts of Trinidad & Tobago?
Can you accuse a sitting judge of being a tyrant, and just let it pass just so?
Is not the statement about of ethnic cleansing, now the subject of a parliamentary enquiry?
These additional issues must be dealt with also!
Governor? Surely you must
Governor? Surely you must mean Emperor? With all that legalese language in said section 10 to which afore-mentioned reference is hereby made I think that on this occasion before concurring in toto I shall need to consult with my Brief and see if he could loan me a copy of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice . In the matter referring the allegation of "ethnic cleansing" (vide Man vs Tim)I shall need to consult with my international jurist to seek to establish whether there has been any prima facie jus cogens infraction that would require the said case to be submitted before the International Criminal Court of Justice for determination. Res sic stantibus in loco I crave hereby your indulgence.
I was taken up too by the
I was taken up too by the term of governor, but then my mind tricked me and all I saw was AG!
But thats what the standing orders on the parliment website says. It would be interesting to find out what May's says...
Eid Mubarack to you!