If the Law Association of T&T (LATT) postpones the report on the matter concerning the Chief Justice today, it could appear to be subterfuge which might serve in his favour, senior counsel Israel Khan warned yesterday.
Khan spoke ahead of today’s meeting of the Association’s council to discuss and assess a preliminary report on matters concerning embattled Chief Justice Ivor Archie who has been dogged by several allegations in recent weeks.
The Association met with Archie recently on the situation and informed him of the intent to probe allegations ranging from seeking to expedite HDC housing for certain individuals to discussing judges’ security. He has denied the allegations although admitting he has from time to time recommended people for HDC housing.
Archie later left T&T on private business is due back soon, it’s understood.
The Association has a five-member committee handling the matter and has recruited two senior counsel to assess whether findings will require triggering processes seeking impeachment. The Association said it expected to have a report on the matter by today.
The report will have to be discussed by Association’s membership.
Khan said: “The CJ has a right to be heard but any delay in finishing the report may appear to be a subterfuge to give him more time. Also, discussions with LATT members will require time to set up such a meeting.”
He added: “The three most senior judges of both the Court of Appeal and first instance bench should form a delegation and seek an audience with the CJ to demand he publicly refute the scandalous allegations against him and they should give him an ultimatum that if he fails this, within seven days of meeting with him they would, via the Attorney General, call for his impeachment.”
On the AG’s recent comment that no one has requested triggering of Section 137 concerning impeachment, Khan said there was sufficient information in the public domain.
Khan said no one has requested a Section 137 tribunal as was done in the case of former Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma.
He explained that Section 137 of the Constitution didn’t contemplate that any person authority/entity must request of the Prime Minister to represent to the President that the “question of removing the Chief Justice ought to be investigated”, thus triggering the process of the President appointing a tribunal whose members are selected by the Prime Minister.
“The President has no choice but to appoint the members of this tribunal as advised by the Prime Minister,” he said.
The standard of proof required to establish the facts for removal of the CJ must be “cogent, compelling, convincing and credible,” Khan said.
“At a Section 137 tribunal hearing, he is entitled to retain counsel of his choice to test the veracity of the witnesses called against him. He is entitled to give evidence and call witnesses on his behalf. So why the reluctance to advise the Prime Minister to trigger Section 137?” he asked.