CJ tells AG: Naraynsingh saved my life:
Can this prosecution be stopped?
By Ria Taitt, newsday.co.tt
Chief Justice Sat Sharma allegedly told Attorney General John Jeremie that there was no way that Dr Vijay Naraynsingh could have been guilty of the offence for which he was charged, and asked if there was any way the prosecution could be aborted. This allegation is contained in a statement by Jeremie which forms part of the documents of complaint against Sharma.
The CJ is alleged to have made these statements at the single meeting he held with Jeremie on the Naraynsingh matter on January 5, 2005.
The AG told the Prime Minister in his statement on the issue dated January 5, that the Chief Justice:
1) Contended that there was no way Naraynsingh could be guilty of the crime for which he was being charged.
2) Wondered whether there was anything that could be done to have the prosecution aborted.
3) Twice during the course of the conversation the CJ questioned the suitability of Geoffrey Henderson to hold the office of Director of Public Prosecutions.
4) That during the meeting, Sharma dramatically raised his shirt to expose a scar across his abdomen and on his back. The Chief Justice then advised Jeremie that Dr Naraynsingh had saved his life 14 years ago through an operation, using only his hands to locate a hitherto undetectable tumour.
5) The Chief Justice also claimed that there were racists in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the statement said.
According to the January 5 statement, Jeremie was requested to attend a meeting at Sharma’s office on December 6. It was the same day that Sharma had summoned Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson to his chambers. It was also three days after Naraynsingh had been charged. in responding to the CJ’s remarks, Jeremie said that the relationship between the Attorney General and the DPP was a difficult one because of the overlap in responsibilities as evidenced in Section 76 (2) and Section 90 of the Constitution. Section 76 (2) gives the Attorney general general responsibility with respect of criminal prosecutions while Section 90 deals with the role of the DPP.
|NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material
from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |