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.