Yvonne Ba­boolal

The Prime Min­is­ter, by the cre­ation of a jus­tice min­istry, wants the courts and the Ju­di­cia­ry to be ac­count­able to him and his Gov­ern­ment. "This is not democ­ra­cy. This is dic­ta­tor­ship," at­tor­ney Ramesh Lawrence Ma­haraj con­tends. He makes the com­ment in an in­ter­view with the Sun­day Guardian when asked about Man­ning's an­nounce­ment at a PNM Mon­day night meet­ing in San­gre Grande of Gov­ern­ment's pro­pos­al to in­tro­duce a jus­tice min­istry.

Man­ning said the Ju­di­cia­ry will have to ac­count to the min­istry which will have "re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to pro­vide all the Ju­di­cia­ry re­quires to be able to ex­er­cise, in­de­pen­dent­ly, their in­de­pen­dent func­tion." Man­ning fur­ther stat­ed: "And the best way we be­lieve that could now be done is by way of a min­istry of jus­tice." Not­ing that there was the po­ten­tial for en­croach­ing on ju­di­cial in­de­pen­dence, the PM said the ini­tia­tive was con­sid­ered as part of the Gov­ern­ment's pro­posed Con­sti­tu­tion re­form. Ma­haraj sees noth­ing wrong with the Ju­di­cia­ry be­ing ac­count­able to the Gov­ern­ment in re­spect of ad­min­is­tra­tive mat­ters, like a back­log of cas­es.

"Gov­ern­ment is ac­count­able to the Par­lia­ment for is­sues like a back­log of cas­es in court and is­sues re­lat­ing to ad­min­is­tra­tion in the jus­tice sys­tem." He states fur­ther, "But the Prime Min­is­ter can­not ques­tion the judge­ment of a court, un­less he ques­tions that judge­ment in an ap­peal to a high­er court. "He can on­ly make them ac­count to a high­er court. The Ju­di­cia­ry and the courts are not ac­count­able to the Gov­ern­ment for their de­ci­sions." He said Man­ning called for a jus­tice min­istry while telling sup­port­ers of judges who de­clare the ac­tions of Gov­ern­ment il­le­gal.

Dan­gers of the min­istry

Ma­haraj said the dan­gers of the min­istry of jus­tice pro­posed by Prime Min­is­ter Patrick Man­ning were in the pow­ers which he ar­tic­u­lates the min­is­ter will have in re­spect of the Ju­di­cia­ry.

He said the courts have a role, how­ev­er, as part of the Rule of Law, to de­clare de­ci­sions and ac­tions of the Gov­ern­ment il­le­gal, if they are con­trary to the Con­sti­tu­tion or the prin­ci­ples of pub­lic law.

Ma­haraj said the Rule of Law, the in­de­pen­dence of the Ju­di­cia­ry and the courts and the sep­a­ra­tion of ju­di­cial, leg­isla­tive and ex­ec­u­tive pow­ers are the three pil­lars of democ­ra­cy. "They are al­so the three pil­lars which con­sti­tute the foun­da­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion of T&T.

"Hu­man rights and fun­da­men­tal free­doms can­not be en­joyed if the Gov­ern­ment con­trols the Ju­di­cia­ry and the Courts. That is tyran­ny."

Privy Coun­cil re­ver­sal rate high

Man­ning, at the Mon­day night meet­ing, al­so crit­i­cised those who did not sup­port the Caribbean Court of Jus­tice (CCJ) re­plac­ing the Privy Coun­cil. He said the Privy Coun­cil went out of its way to en­sure that the death penal­ty is not car­ried out in T&T. He said the CCJ was not a hang­ing court but an arrange­ment that is clos­er to T&T's as­pi­ra­tions. Ma­haraj said the CCJ, in a judge­ment in a death penal­ty case, agreed with the prin­ci­ples de­cid­ed by the Privy Coun­cil in re­spect of de­lay in car­ry­ing out the death penal­ty. "Even if the CCJ did not agree, that can­not be a rea­son for not hav­ing the Privy Coun­cil."

He re­called that Man­ning, in 2000, did not sup­port an amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion which he (Ma­haraj) in­tro­duced when he was At­tor­ney Gen­er­al. Man­ning, as Op­po­si­tion Leader at the time, told Par­lia­ment that peo­ple con­vict­ed of mur­der must en­joy their hu­man rights. Ma­haraj said, in re­cent times, the re­ver­sal rate of de­ci­sions of the Court of Ap­peal by the Privy Coun­cil is ap­prox­i­mate­ly 80 per cent.

"Most of the cas­es in­volv­ing the en­joy­ment of hu­man rights de­cid­ed in favour of the Gov­ern­ment lo­cal­ly have been re­versed by the Privy Coun­cil. The vic­tims of these vi­o­la­tions suc­ceed­ed in the Privy Coun­cil," Ma­haraj said. "What is wrong with our sys­tem in which there are so many re­ver­sals in re­spect of mat­ters which af­fect the rights of in­di­vid­u­als?" The Privy Coun­cil can­not be abort­ed as the fi­nal court of ap­peal for T&T cit­i­zens un­less the move is sup­port­ed by the pub­lic, he said.