Justice Jones says extended injunction best way to guard against injustice

For the second time in two days, the judiciary has come out in its defence in the latest controversy surrounding its boss, Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma.

Yesterday, court communications and information officer, Asha Samaroo, said she was instructed by Sharma to issue the statement.

In it, the statement said newspaper reports erroneously gave the impression that the entire judiciary collaborated in issuing Sunday’s release, which spoke of telephone calls to and from Sharma’s Maraval home on the evening of July 14, as police prepared to arrest the Chief Justice.

“Clearly in the circumstances this could not be so, as they were not present,” the statement said.

It said that Sunday’s statement was done with the agreement of all the parties who were present at the CJ’s house on July 14.

“The Chief Justice is of the view that he is under an obligation to protect the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the judges, and on this occasion it was entirely warranted,” yesterday’s release stated.

By Jada Loutoo

Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma cannot be arrested at this time. Sharma scored a minor victory yesterday, crippling any further attempt to prosecute him after Justice Judith Jones ruled that the restraints placed on the police will last at least until the October hearing of his lawsuit.

Justice Jones’ decision means that the arrest warrant in Sharma’s name cannot be served on him at the present time.

Police Commissioner Trevor Paul, through his lawyer Gilbert Peterson, SC, said he was willing to abide by whatever the court ruled.

Peterson’s assertion came before the judge’s ruling, yesterday.

Two Fridays ago, police, armed with a warrant, failed in their attempt to arrest Sharma at his Fairways, Maraval, home.

Their effort was precipitated by an investigation of complaints by Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc-Nicolls of a conversation he had with Sharma about the Basdeo Panday integrity trial.

In her ruling yesterday, Jones said continuation of the injunction prevented injustice and minimised damage, as it offered the best prospect to guard against injustice.

Sharma, who has said that the decision to prosecute him was politically-influenced, was unavailable for comment yesterday.

Also yesterday, lawyers for the CoP could not say if they intended to appeal Jones’ ruling.

Peterson, contacted by telephone, would only say that lodging an appeal was not yet decided upon.

“We are now considering our options.”

Speculation whether the Government was considering a limited state of emergency was rife, last Friday, after Prime Minister Patrick Manning met with the President and the National Security Council.

Jones, in her oral judgment, said she was satisfied that Sharma’s legal challenge justified the court orders, adding, too, that the court’s processes had to be protected and not frustrated.

But, she said the injunctions granted to Sharma, which barred the entire Police Service from instituting proceedings against Sharma, were “too wide.”

Lawyers for the Chief Justice and the police are expected to return to court tomorrow with proposals for a leaner order.

In an afternoon sitting at the Hall of Justice, yesterday, Justice Jones lifted the court order against Asst Commissioner of Police Wellington Virgil, who led the investigations based on Mc Nicolls’ complaint.

He is still, however, covered by the July 18 injunction which extends to all 7,000 officers in the police force.

Jones—whose court orders elicited strong condemnation from some—admitted that the decision to continue the injunction was not an easy one.

In a previous ruling, Jones said Sharma had presented an arguable case to the court.

The Legal team

• Douglas Mendes, SC, and Stuart Young appeared for Brown-Antoine.

• The Chief Justice was represented by Alvin Fitzpatrick, SC, and Adrian Byrne, while Ian Benjamin and Nirala Bansee stood for ACP Wellington Virgil.

• Gilbert Peterson, SC, and Kerwyn Garcia appeared for the CoP.

October hearing for CJ lawsuits

Five days in October have been set aside for hearing of the Chief Justice’s latest lawsuit, and a case management hearing is expected on September 19.

This comes one week after another of Sharma’s legal challenges will be heard in the High Court.

Sharma is challenging a decision by Prime Minister Patrick Manning to advise President George Maxwell Richards to set up a tribunal to investigate whether he (the CJ) should be removed from office, after it was alleged he attempted to exert pressure on Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson and Attorney General John Jeremie to drop a murder charge against Prof Vijay Naraynsingh.

He is also facing another move to have him impeached based on Mc Nicolls’ complaint and has also managed to block those attempts.

That lawsuit is expected to come up before Justice Rajendra Narine for trial in September.

©2005-2006 Trinidad Publishing Company Limited

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news1.html