The Law As­so­ci­a­tion of Trinidad and To­ba­go (LATT) has is­sued a state­ment fol­low­ing the Ju­di­cial Com­mit­tee of the Privy Coun­cil’s rul­ing in Ay­ers-Cae­sar v. JLSC ([2025] UKPC 15), ad­dress­ing key le­gal is­sues re­gard­ing ju­di­cial tenure and the au­thor­i­ty of the Ju­di­cial and Le­gal Ser­vices Com­mis­sion (JLSC).

The LATT said the Privy Coun­cil’s judg­ment con­firms that ju­di­cial of­fi­cers may be re­moved un­der Sec­tion 137 of the Con­sti­tu­tion based on con­duct that oc­curred be­fore their ap­point­ment.

The rul­ing al­so de­ter­mined that the JLSC did not fol­low the con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­ce­dure for re­moval in the case of Madam Jus­tice Mar­cia Ay­ers-Cae­sar.

“It is now clear that ju­di­cial of­fi­cers may be re­moved from of­fice un­der Sec­tion 137 of the Con­sti­tu­tion based on ev­i­dence of con­duct that oc­curred pri­or to their ap­point­ment,” the Law As­so­ci­a­tion stat­ed. “How­ev­er, the rul­ing al­so af­firms that the on­ly law­ful mech­a­nism for such re­moval is the con­sti­tu­tion­al process out­lined in Sec­tion 137.”

It said the Privy Coun­cil found that the JLSC sought Jus­tice Ay­ers-Cae­sar’s res­ig­na­tion rather than ini­ti­at­ing a tri­bunal un­der Sec­tion 137.

“The JLSC act­ed un­law­ful­ly in pres­sur­ing Madam Jus­tice Ay­ers-Cae­sar to re­sign her of­fice rather than face a tri­bunal con­vened in ac­cor­dance with Sec­tion 137 of the Con­sti­tu­tion,” the As­so­ci­a­tion stat­ed.

“Ju­di­cial of­fi­cers, like any oth­er cit­i­zen, are en­ti­tled to de­fend them­selves be­fore any de­ci­sions are made for their re­moval from of­fice.”

The state­ment al­so ad­dressed broad­er con­sti­tu­tion­al prin­ci­ples, in­clud­ing ju­di­cial se­cu­ri­ty of tenure.

“Se­cu­ri­ty of tenure en­sures that ju­di­cial of­fi­cers are free from ex­ter­nal pres­sures and in­ter­fer­ence, whether ex­ert­ed by the Ex­ec­u­tive, the JLSC which ap­points them, or the Chief Jus­tice who leads them,” the As­so­ci­a­tion said.

The Law As­so­ci­a­tion not­ed that the is­sues that gave rise to the lit­i­ga­tion re­main un­re­solved.

“What­ev­er the rea­son for the fail­ure on the part of the JLSC and the Chief Jus­tice, of all per­sons, to rec­og­nize the im­por­tance of this in­de­pen­dence, that fail­ure is a mat­ter of se­ri­ous con­cern,” the state­ment said.

The Law As­so­ci­a­tion stat­ed that the rul­ing clar­i­fies con­sti­tu­tion­al re­quire­ments re­gard­ing the re­moval of ju­di­cial of­fi­cers and em­pha­sized the im­por­tance of fol­low­ing es­tab­lished pro­ce­dures.