The eight-month saga surrounding the State's attempt to arrest Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma culminated in a landmark hearing at the London-based Privy Council yesterday.
Sasha MohammedIn a marathon sitting that kicked off at 10.15 a.m. and ended at around 4.15 p.m., the five law lords of the country's highest appeal court heard an account from Sharma's lead attorney, British Queen's Counsel Andrew Mitchell, of political intrigue involving three of the top office holders of the land to set up a man with over 22 years' service as an appeal court judge.
In his hour-and-40-minute-long submission, he argued that clear evidence of political machination in the case rested on the chronology of events leading up to the fateful meeting between the Chief Justice and Prime Minister Patrick Manning in May, where Sharma was told to resign or be charged for attempting to pervert the course of justice by allegedly interfering in the Basdeo Panday integrity trial earlier this year.
Sharma is asking the Privy Council to quash a decision by the Court of Appeal in September to overturn five injunctions barring deputy DPP Carla Browne Antoine and the entire Police Service from arresting him.
Mitchell yesterday submitted that the main questions for the law lords to consider was exactly why Manning decided to wait five weeks after Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls had personally complained to Manning about the attempted interference to confront Sharma. He noted that this was done after McNicolls had found Panday guilty of failing to declare a multi million-dollar bank account while he was Prime Minister, and convicted him to two years hard labour in prison.
Mitchell also noted that nothing came out of Sharma's counter allegation that McNicolls had lodged the complaint after the CJ had confronted him with the details of a questionable $4 million land deal he was allegedly involved in.
Mitchell, who was energetic yet pensive in his submissions, also dismissed allegations by British Queen's Counsel, Sir Timothy Cassell, that Sharma had spoken to him about the matter during a plane ride. "One wonders how many times do people chat about cases," he said, adding that decision-makers know when to dismiss unfounded statements in these types of normal conversations in the legal fraternity.
"Why didn't he (Cassell) say, 'Mr Chief Justice, I've got my job, you've got yours?'" Mitchell asked, adding that nothing was ever said by Sharma to anyone to indicate he tried to pressure anyone to make a decision in Panday's favour. He also questioned why McNicolls did not go to the normal route of complaining about Sharma to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission.
He said at this point, the case "moved from the unholy trinity of the PM, AG and Chief Magistrate" to the Deputy DPP, Carla Browne Antoine, who he said was politically influenced, as were Police Commissioner (CoP) Trevor Paul and ACP Wellington Virgil to charge Sharma.
"What drives a CoP in the face of court orders to apply, obtain and execute a warrant of arrest to arrest the Chief Justice and why was this done at 5 p.m. on a Friday evening?" Mitchell asked, saying it must have been done because of the perceived unavailability of a Justice of the Peace to grant Sharma bail.
"It highlights that this has political drivers behind it-the AG and PM. Any CoP asking what is reasonable and proper would have stopped short of a warrant to arrest on Friday. There was no urgency from March to April, only after May," he said.
Mitchell called on the law lords to reinstate the injunctions, saying too that the normal route of prosecuting a chief justice is via section 137 of the Constitution, which gives clear guidelines to remove him by an independent tribunal.
The State's British QC, Sir Godfrey Le Quesne, took two hours from 2 p.m to respond. He mainly argued that the Deputy DPP was constitutionally mandated to charge Sharma, saying, "Nothing gives rise to the suspicion of political motivation."
In his slow, deliberate style, he contended that it was a misconception to suggest the Sharma could only be moved via a constitutional impeachment, saying he was subject to criminal trial as any other citizen. He is due to continue his arguments today when the matter continues from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
