The scandalous and shameful inaction on the part of the Judicial & Legal Services Commission (JLSC) regarding the recommendation in the Justice Ventour report that Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nichols face disciplinary charges for misconduct is ridiculous. It is a clear case of different strokes for different folks.
It is almost farcical given the revelation that the President suspended the Chief Justice but is yet to even issue instruments of appointment and swear in the members of the tribunal that must conduct the enquiry into whether there is just cause for removing the CJ.
The resolutions passed by the Law Association (LA) this week seek to force the hand of the JLSC. I accept the criticism that the LA should have been more proactive in the past, about other pressing matters that affect the administration of justice in the public interest but the present state of affairs is totally unacceptable and needed urgent action. The profession is divided on the issue and today I wish to explain the invisible price tag that is attached to standing up for principle for in many ways, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
CJ Satnarine Sharma is on the eve of his retirement and is therefore not in any position to grant favours of any type to lawyers. I have been warned by many that I should not be publicly vocal about this crisis because he is on his way out and cannot assist my professional career advancement. Many have counselled that the judges who do not support CJ Sharma and probably can’t wait to see his back will victimize me. My clients could suffer, as judges have unlimited jurisdiction and power in a case and could be unconsciously (or consciously) biased against me. They could legitimately exercise their subjective discretion against believing my witnesses and to top it off, I would never be appointed a senior counsel.
I continue to stand up for what I believe in because far too many in our society are prepared to sacrifice principle for the sake of personal advancement. The judges I appear before cannot be so petty or else they should not have been appointed judges in the first place. The idea that the system could be so small-minded makes me sick because it means that the independence and fairness of judges is a farce. As for career advancement, the only cause I seek to advance is that of justice. Being appointed a senior counsel does not magically enhance my ability or change my principles.
Many of my colleagues who have stood firm in the midst of this onslaught against the CJ have been dubbed supporters of Sharma. Truth be told, like many of them, I am more interested in defending the sacred constitutional principles that are at stake. These principles include the right to an independent judiciary free from political interference manned by judges whose tenure is secure and cannot be suspended or removed except in very limited situations. It is in defence of the office of CJ and not Mr Sharma. Whether I like him or not, it is my duty to defend the constitution. To remove him in the absence of a properly appointed and/or functioning tribunal when the constitution makes this a clear pre-condition to suspension is wrong.
There are many who have stood against this administration on this matter that has no political allegiance. They have suffered a serious backlash and paid a dear price. In some cases, the Attorney General has withdrawn State briefs and re-distributed them to other lawyers who are perceived to be on the side of the government. Work from State enterprises have dried up. The financial price tag has been a high one. With nothing to gain and everything to lose, these colleagues continue to stand tall and firm, even as they continue to be criticized by those who are now in gleeful receipt of lucrative briefs from the government.
The irony of lawyers (most of whom were appointed senior counsel under the PNM) supporting the government as they continue to chew on fat State briefs while they accuse others who have acted to their personal detriment of not standing up for principle seems to be lost. Perhaps there is greater principle in not biting the hand that feeds you than in defending the constitution that is the cornerstone of law, justice and order. Hopefully, history will record that while some were busy singing for their supper, a few brave souls defended the sanctity of our constitution during its darkest hour.
By Anand Ramlogan 2007-07-07