Jeremie’s ferocious bouncer
Jeremie leaps to the defence of his Prime Minister. In the process, a judge is hammered in the sacred precincts of Parliament.
The Attorney General took the unprecedented step in parliament of not only attacking a court ruling but going as far as referring the judge in question to the Chief Justice, thereby, bringing into clear focus the traditional principle of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
While this cherished democratic principle might have always been in question and the court here in the past has ruled certain legislation as unconstitutional, it is the first time that there has been a frontal attack on the judiciary in parliament.
With constitutional reform high on the country’s agenda, AG John Jeremie’s action should now place the relationship between both institutions of State a key issue for discussion. Particularly, since there are constitutional proposals for a Ministry of Justice which may or may not impinge on the independence of the judiciary and place us in a Latin American republican hell.
While the court has to adjudicate on matters brought before it and cannot, by any means, take a hands off stance to issues involving Government’s actions, legislation or otherwise, the bothersome question still has to be asked: should the judiciary be taken to task in parliament or elsewhere by politicians? Will constitutional warning bells not be sounded?
The judiciary, which is expected to dispense justice and deal with the excesses of the executive, however, is not a sacred cow and like the political directorate or parliament should be subject to public scrutiny. AG Jeremie’s spirited defence of the Prime Minister in which he accused Justice Rajendra Narine’s ruling to have allegations contained in Muslimeen leader Abu Bakr’s affidavit sent to the Acting Commissioner of Police and the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions may be seen as unusual in terms of the forum he used.
Jeremie did not only defend his Prime Minister. He went on the offensive and reported Judge Narine to the Chief Justice, obviously, for a dressing down. Jeremie’s contention is that Narine’s decision was in defiance of the Appeal Court and the Privy Council. That, of course, is a moot legal point which another former Attorney General in the person of Opposition MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar has, gratuitously, decided to argue stating that Jeremie is wrong; he is in contempt of court and had he made a similar speech outside of Parliament would have been jailed.
Jeremie noted that the insurrectionist’s affidavit was described as “scandalous” by the Court of Appeal and ordered removed from the record and pointed out that Bakr had also made serious allegations about former Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj but no one took any notice of it.
AG Jeremie’s intervention may raise certain doubts about the dispensation of justice in this country or the behaviour of the political directorate. However, of late, there has been some disquiet in the judiciary. Recently, Judge Stanley John criticised the decisions of a magistrate and, apparently, was hauled across the coals.
Judge Herbert Volney, who apparently does not want to be an Appeal Court Judge, had choice criticisms about the judiciary implying cronyism. When Sat Sharma was under the gun, it is an open secret that the judiciary was split into two camps and there was a lot of tension among brother judges. The reality is that while former Chief Justice Isaac Hyatali could have spoken 30 years ago about the watering of the brandy in terms of the calibre of judges joining the judiciary in that era what we may be seeing now is the unravelling of the very fabric of a cherished institution.
The AG has robustly (to use a current popular) legal term thrown a spanner in the works: the matter, of course, could have been handled otherwise. We will just have to wait and see what happens next.
Perhaps, the Chief Justice may touch on the state of the judiciary when he addresses the ceremonial opening of the new law term today.