Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi says the executive will not be getting involved in the latest issue involving Chief Justice Ivor Archie, although it prompted High Court judges to write to the CJ seeking a meeting to discuss allegations against him—a request which Archie has declined.
“There are clear constitutional guidelines on the involvement between the executive and the Judiciary under Section 137 of the Constitution which deals with judges,” Al-Rawi told the T&T Guardian yesterday.
In fact, he said despite what has been reported in the media, there is “nothing at this point in time which should occupy the executive’s attention in this matter.”
Archie has been accused of attempting to persuade judges to change their state-provided security in favour of a private company where one of his friends works. Although he has declined to meet with the judges, the CJ said his door is “always open for discussions of legitimate concerns to my colleagues who are truly interested in the welfare of the Judiciary and the country.”
In response, Justice Carol Gobin has sent an email to her colleagues on the bench expressing concern about the CJ’s continued silence. She said he was “oblivious it seems to the effect of this scandalous state of affairs on the Judiciary.”
“The mess, the stench of it is everywhere. It is his responsibility to begin to clean it up if he can,” she said.
Gobin added that the CJ has to “recognise that he is accountable to the institution and the country.”
Commenting on the ongoing controversy yesterday, political analyst Dr Bishnu Ragoonath, head of the Political Science Department at The University of the West Indies, said it appears no one has any oversight over what is happening in the Judiciary. He said it is hard to understand why the CJ is refusing to meet with the judges.
Ragoonath said if text messages between the CJ and a friend who is part owner of a security company suggest some sort of collusion, there might be grounds for impeachment for misbehaviour in public office. He also warned the situation could undermine the credibility of the Judiciary.
Retired Public Service Commission chairman Kenneth Lalla, who once served as a member of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC), was also concerned about the impact the controversy was having.
“The Judiciary is the pillar of our democracy and any lack of confidence in its integrity would be a blow to this institution.”
Lalla expressed regret that the Judiciary appears to be in a state of “utter chaos” as a result of the alleged acts of impropriety or misconduct on the part of the CJ. He said while there is no proof of the allegations, there appears to be “a strong perception” that the CJ should resign.
But Lalla noted that any action against the CJ must come from the Prime Minister under Section 137 of the Constitution, which states that “where the Prime Minister represents to the President that the question of removing the Chief Justice ought to be investigated, the President shall appoint a tribunal which shall inquire into the matter and report on the facts to the President.”
He said unless and until a tribunal is appointed to inquire into the allegations against the CJ, public confidence in the Judiciary might “remain in limbo and continue to diminish.”