Jeremie Misled Senate on the CJ Issue
Posted: Sunday, March 6, 2005
By Stephen Kangal
Incredible cascading events reinforced by deliberate leakage of confidential, sensitive and delicate matters of state published in the print media must lead Senators to conclude that the Hon AG John Jeremie intentionally misled the Senate or was economical with the truth on Feb. 3. In a reply to a question posed by Senator Wade Mark he denied that there was any plan being instituted by Government officials to remove the CJ from Office. The AG should be brought before the House Disciplinary Committee and made to answer the serious charge of deliberately and knowingly misleading Parliament.
The following are the compelling evidence:
According to the Honourable CJ's letter, in his meeting with the Honourable PM on 24 January the CJ indicated quite unambiguously: "You have informed me that you are proceeding under Section 137 of the Constitution with the object of securing my removal from the Office of the Chief Justice". That was not fact finding or acting fairly.
2 The CJ was so convinced of the proposed intent (plan) of the PM (the Government) that the CJ conveyed his intention "… to commence appropriate proceedings in Court in order to set aside your decision".
3. The AG had previously even colluded with the Ag Chief Justice, the Honourable Roger Hamel-Smith to undermine the CJ Sharma in his submission to the PM dated 5 January 2005. Hamel-Smith even made representations to the President unknowing to the Chief Justice but certainly with the knowledge if not the prodding of AG Jeremie.
4. Both AG Jeremie and DPP Henderson intentionally concealed during meetings from the CJ the fact that they had formally reported to the PM the confidential conversation held with the CJ. In fact the PM had described AG Jeremie as a complainant in the case against the CJ (not taking advice from) him during his Senate Statement even though the PM described his then role as a "fact-finding mission" but had already conveyed to the CJ on 24 Jan. his intention to remove him from Office.
5. The DPP was party to the sinister plot in that he requested to meet at the residence of the CJ, breached the confidentiality of trust and the sanctity of a man's home and secretly taped, gestapo-style, his conversation with the CJ without the requisite approval of the latter.
All of this anti-CJ plotting and espionage took place before 3 February on which date the AG described the accurate remark made by Senator Wade Mark as "ignorance of the highest order and highly inflammatory language'.
Contrary to the statement attributed to the AG Jeremie the Constitution allows a Government to remove a Chief Justice by using the constitutionally prescribed role of the President and Privy Council as provided for in Section 137 (3).
Send page by E-Mail