Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
It appears that Chief Justice Ivor Archie has lost his appeal to the Privy Council in his attempt to restrain the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) from investigating allegations of misconduct made against him in the media.
The Privy Council did not call upon LATT’s lawyers to respond to the oral submissions made by Archie’s lawyers at the hearing on Monday last, 23 July, but further comment must await the delivery of the Privy Council’s official decision and written reasons.
Nevertheless, a series of disquieting events began unfolding for more than a year, concerning maladministration on the part of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC)—of which the Chief Justice is the Chair—and subsequently concerning misconduct of the Chief Justice himself. These events give rise to a need to pay careful attention to the role and conduct of the Attorney General.
He has seemed keen to protect the Chief Justice. In my view, he has not observed the detachment required of his office.
More recently, the Attorney General has been cavalier and dismissive of concern expressed by LATT regarding certain Bills he was putting before Parliament prior to its recess. LATT pointed out dangers contained in these Bills for the already imperilled Judiciary.
One of these Bills, if passed, will not only leave judicial appointments in the hands of the now discredited JLSC; it will also give that body the capacity to increase the number of judges and recruit them from outside the region.
Do I smell the influence of insidious networks?
Given the recent impatience of the Attorney General in responding to a number of legitimate challenges, it may be that the obvious need for putting appropriate watchful distance between his office and that of the Chief Justice will continue to escape him.
I have already specifically raised the relevance to these Bills of what might be the result of the Chief Justice’s appeal.
Let’s see whether the delivery of the reasons of the Privy Council will bring the Government around to a mature mood, thereby making it unnecessary for discerning commentators to comment further on the performance of the office of Attorney General in relation to the Chief Justice affair.
Meanwhile, my love of history returned my attention to the life and work of Louis D Brandeis, one of the most famous and influential persons ever to sit on the bench of the US Supreme Court. One well known dictum of Brandeis was: “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”
With respect, the Attorney General needs to refresh his understanding of the constitutional nuances playing out in this Chief Justice controversy, and not embarrass his Prime Minister—on whom the Constitution places responsibility relating to misbehaviour of a Chief Justice.
(Copyright Ministry of Housing)
Prior to his appointment to the US Supreme Court, Brandeis settled in Boston, Massachusetts in which state Harvard University is located. It is reported that the grade point average with which Brandeis graduated was not surpassed at Harvard Law School for nearly a century.
Brandeis believed that it was “dishonourable to submit to bad government.”
“We want a good government,” he said, “not because it is good business but because it is dishonourable to submit to bad government. The great name, the glory of Boston, is in our keeping.”
The occasion of this statement was a public address in support of having the legislature of the state of Massachusetts enact legislation, which he had drafted designed to make it a punishable crime for a public official to solicit a job and favours from regulated public utilities—into which politicians in Boston at the time were stuffing their friends into jobs.
Perhaps the Government will come to an appreciation that current circumstances have caused the quality and reputation of our Judiciary to be placed partly in their keeping.
(Courtesy Office of the President)
Playing around with alleged misconduct and handing a discredited JLSC the power to make a greater number of appointments to a Judiciary increased in size will do irreparable damage to our country for generations to come, bearing in mind that many judicial appointments have security of tenure until retirement.
I begin this week with a thank you to those in the airport who welcomed me home on the Saturday Read more
It is 22 years to the day that my very first column appeared in the Sunday Express newspaper. It has Read more
Last week’s column was forced to return to what I assert is the government’s unwillingness to take any responsibility for Read more
For some weeks this column had been focused on the good, the bad and the ugly of Carnival and its Read more
The centrality of the Panorama competition to the steelband movement cannot be doubted. However, there are some downsides to it Read more
How do we get our brilliant steelbands and their significant numbers of youthful players and supporters back on the road Read more
The Attorney General has respect for the office. He was not dragged up.
Daly seems to have an agenda. Wait for the privy council to decide.
Oh please! How apparently transparent. Daly get a new topic.
1isPNM other is african
How ignorant !
Daly is not noticing his own bias in this situation.
Could you point out his bias please?
Daly should continue following steelpan and drink himself to stupor
Daly dislike has nothing to do with his alleged romps with a gay man but CJ ill advised appoint of Judges and eventual chaos that came. Daly and his friends know that public are more concern about his sexual habits than his judicary mistakes.
What are his sexual habits. Let people pump their gums and pay out tidy sums.plenty who talking have skeletons in their closets.
Politicians disengage their reason due to power disease
LGBTQI…….wondering ?
Ask daddy
I cannot see how Daly can say that “it appears that Chief Justice Ivor Archie has lost his appeal to the Privy Council in his attempt to restrain the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) from investigating allegations of misconduct made against him in the media.” Did he say the same court proceedings as I did?
The outcome can still swing either way. Just because the Law Lords did not desire, or needed, to hear the position of the LATT, does not mean that Archie has lost his appeal. There are numerous reasons why the judges might have declined to hear opposing counsel.
The above 2 paragraphs are in no way a defence of the CJ. I happen to agree with Daly that he has committed an egregious breach both ethically and with respect to the rule of law. His situation is untenable. He has brought worldwide shame to his office and made Trinidad and Tobago a laughing stock around the world, especially those countries which follow the British legal system. He is also probably the very 1st Chief Justice in the entire Commonwealth who is so embattled.
1 point, and it is a major point, that everyone seems to forget is that the CJ has admitted, publicly, that he did try to influence the award of State housing to friends. Complicating matters is that these friends were convicted of fraudulent activities and were indeed using the office of the Chief Justice, and the name of the Chief Justice, in furtherance of more fraudulent deeds. That much is in the public domain.
Archie, however, decided that “might is right”, and is using all of the authority of his office to browbeat the public, the judiciary, and even the government.
Although the fault is of his own making, a large percentage of the blame must fall on the shoulders of the Prime Minister, who is actively fettering his discretion to have the CJ referred to the President for investigation under section 137 of the Constitution.
I just wonder how long it would take the legal fraternity to realise that someone needs to judicially review the Prime Minister’s lack of action.
Perhaps he is going on experience of what usually happens when the PC declines to hear opposing counsel. Ramesh Maharaj also said the same thing. Another clue (small as it might be) was a quote the media gave of one of the judges indicating that the LATT investigation will not bring finality to the issue, (I am paraphrasing). This is precisely LATT’s argument. It’s only the Constitutional procedures which will bring finality.