The Law Association is yet to decide whether it will file a judicial review lawsuit challenging Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley’s decision to dismiss its investigative report into misconduct allegations levelled against Chief Justice Ivor Archie.
Speaking following a marathon meeting of the council on Tuesday evening to discuss the issue, the association’s president Douglas Mendes, SC, said he and the other executive members resolved to get legal advice on the issue before they make a decision and communicate it to Rowley.
Mendes said: “There are serious flaws in the methodology adopted in the opinion and in the Prime Minister’s response. We will be seeking an opinion on whether those flaws will be sufficient to justify judicial review proceedings.”
The meeting came hours after Rowley sent official correspondence to the association explaining his decision, which was first announced while he was responding to questions during last week’s post-Cabinet press briefing. The legal opinion on the association’s investigative report and corresponding legal advice, used by Rowley to make his decision, was also shared on social media on Monday.
In his opinion, British Queen’s Counsel Howard Stevens, QC, suggested that the evidence gathered in the probe was insufficient to warrant Rowley invoking Section 137 of the Constitution to bring impeachment proceedings against Archie.
While Stevens considered all the allegations raised against Archie that were investigated by the association, he mainly focused on those related to recommending persons for Housing Development Corporation (HDC) houses.
Stevens acknowledged that the committee had difficulties with the fact that neither Archie nor Rowley responded to the allegations during its investigation.
However, he noted that his advice was based on the fact that Rowley denied that there was any communication on the issue with Archie.
“Notwithstanding his involvement in the section 137 process, the Prime Minister cannot ignore this very important fact, which (assuming it to be correct) must seem to dispose of this complaint. It would be wholly artificial, and unfair to the Chief Justice, to require him to be investigated just because of the Prime Minister’s involvement in the case,” Stevens said. He also stated that the case against Archie was weakened by the fact that there was also no evidence that Archie was aware of any fraud being allegedly committed by his friends and convicted fraudsters Dillian Johnson and Kern Romero, using his name.
In an interview with Guardian Media yesterday, Michael Rooplal, the president of the Assembly of Southern Lawyers, suggested that the association was correct to consider judicial review proceedings.
“The Prime Minister did the right thing in releasing the advice he got in relation to the matter because there were a lot of questions over the basis of his decision. The opinion raises a couple of concerns that the Law Association has to address,” he said.
While he declined to comment extensively on the issue, he did acknowledge that it caused some concerns to his organisation.
“It is a pressing issue for all lawyers. The integrity of the justice system and transparency in the administration of justice are the issues that are on the floor with this issue,” Rooplal said.
About the Case
The controversy surrounding Archie arose in late 2017 after a series of newspaper reports accused Archie of attempting to persuade the judges to change their State-provided security in favour of a private company in which his friend and convicted fraudster Dillian Johnson worked.
Archie was also accused of attempting to fast-track Housing Development Corporation (HDC) applications for Johnson, who has been convicted of fraud.
Shortly after the allegations surfaced, Johnson fled to the United Kingdom (UK) after he was wounded at a shooting at his home. Johnson was denied asylum by UK authorities but was allowed to stay in that court as he was granted humanitarian protection for five years.
Archie was also linked to convicted fraudster Kern Romero, who was accused of using his alleged friendship with Archie to defraud persons. Romero died in hospital, earlier this year.
In November 2017, the Council of the Law Association called on Archie to respond to the allegation that he discussed the judges’ meeting with Johnson.
The association’s council then appointed a sub-committee to investigate the allegations and sought the legal advice from Dr Francis Alexis, QC, of Grenada and Eamon Courtenay, QC, of Belize, to determine if the allegations are sufficient to trigger impeachment proceedings under S137 of the Constitution.
While the report and the senior lawyers’ advice were not made public by the association, its members voted by a large majority to recommend impeachment proceedings to Rowley.
Under the section, the President appoints a tribunal after misconduct allegations against a CJ or judge are referred by the Prime Minister.
The tribunal, which includes a chairman and at least two other members, all with appellate judicial experience in Commonwealth jurisdictions, will then investigate. The tribunal reports to the Privy Council, which then gives the President recommendations on what action, if any, should be taken.
The association process was initially stymied after Archie obtained an injunction blocking the probe. The injunction was overturned by three of his colleagues from the Court of Appeal and their decision was upheld by the Privy Council in August.
Archie has repeatedly refused to comment directly to the allegations but has denied any wrongdoing.
In October, last year, the Judiciary issued a release over the allegations, which were rehashed in a fresh series of reports.
Archie rejected the allegations which he described as false and recycled innuendos.