Former late Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma walked a tough road when he battled the PNM administration’s historic—and unsuccessful attempts to remove him over 2005 to 2007.
The then—PNM Government under late Prime Minister Patrick Manning had instituted action in 2005 on one matter and a second matter arose in 2006. But Sharma prevailed.
Sharma was three years into his six-year tenure as Chief Justice when the first allegation surfaced. This concerned allegations that he attempted to induce a murder charge to be dropped against surgeon Dr Vijay Narayansingh on murdering his wife. Narayansingh was subsequently cleared.
The second issue in 2006 concerned allegation by then Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicholls that Sharma attempted to “influence” the outcome of the trial against former prime minister Basdeo Panday. He’d been charged with failing to declare to the Integrity Commission a London bank account which he and his wife, Oma, held from 1997-1999 when Panday was prime minister.
In his long battle, Sharma consistently accused the PNM administration of political bias and being motivated by racial reasons.
Sharma was 62 at the time the first issue began in 2005. As the other matter arose and he was suspended from office, the situation deprived him of the opportunity to address the opening of the law term.
And he never got the opportunity again even after he was cleared in 2007 since his term as CJ ended in early 2008.
“Of course he was wounded, but he rose above it. He kept the faith and he was never vindictive,” says Senior Counsel Pamela Elder, his lead attorney in the 2006 matter when McNicholl’s case crumbled. Then, Elder had described that situation as an outrageous mockery of the justice system.
Yesterday, Elder told Guardian Media: “In all my interactions with former Chief Justice Sharma— as an attorney before him, in appeals, as a sitting judge and in representing him—one feature among his characteristics remained constant: he was a very humble man of extremely deep intellect,”
“I remember him also as a strong person of faith and man who always tried to do what was best for the administration of justice, criminal and civil. He was a strong nobleman of great integrity.”
Former AG Jeremie told Guardian media yesterday: “The legal fraternity has lost a yet another giant.”
How Sharma’s
saga began
Sharma’s trials began in April 2005—Manning told Parliament a decision had been made to advise then-President George Maxwell Richards to establish a tribunal to probe whether Sharma should be removed.
That followed allegation that Sharma attempted to induce then DPP Geoffrey Henderson and then-Attorney General John Jeremie to drop a murder charge against Naraynsingh (subsequently cleared of the charge.)
Sharma sought to legally block the probe and Richards held off on appointing a three-member tribunal to investigate Sharma’s actions in office.
The matter entered mediation in October 2005 before Sharma’s legal action was filed— but mediation discussions collapsed in January 2006.
In May 2006, the second issue arose when then McNicolls alleged Sharma attempted to influence his decision in the Panday trial. That matter saw Sharma facing the grim prospect of life imprisonment.
Sharma subsequently alleged to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) that Mc Nicolls used his position to have a land deal settled in his favour and that he “maliciously lied” to Manning after Sharma confronted him on the transaction.
Manning wrote Sharma on February 21, 2007, informing him of a decision to resume the process he’d begun in 2006 under Section 137 of the Constitution. That allows a prime minister to trigger proceedings to probe if a CJ should be impeached.
Sharma later claimed Manning gave an ultimatum to resign or be charged. He subsequently again sought legal action blocking any proceedings against him based on Section 137.
But by May 11 2006, police began probing McNicolls’ allegations and Sharma’s office was searched.
A month later in June 2006, the JLSC appointed Justice Humphrey Stollmeyer to probe Sharma’s allegations against McNicolls who was eventually cleared by JLSC of any wrongdoing.
By July, Sharma was able to temporarily halt criminal charges being laid against him stemming from McNicolls’ complaint. But in a shocking development on July 14, police unsuccessfully tried to arrest Sharma at his Maraval home.
Sharma fights back
Criminal charges were later laid against him and Sharma was suspended from his post on July 28.
Justice Roger Hamel Smith was named to act as CJ.
Sharma lost in the Appeal Court concerning his arrest and he appealed to the Privy Council.
However, in September 2006 his attorneys withdrew action seeking to block any further proceedings against him under Section 137.
By November 30, 2006, the Privy Council ruled against Sharma. He surrendered to police, suffering through procedures which arrested persons are subjected.
In January 2007, high-ranking office-holders including Manning, Jeremie and others were put on notice to testify at Sharma’s impeachment case.
A month later, criminal prosecution against Sharma began. But by March 5, 2007, the prosecution abandoned the case after McNicolls said he no longer wanted to testify.
Sharma was expected to return to office in April 2007. Then Manning revealed he had asked McNicholls if he was prepared to give evidence under any tribunal triggered by Section 137 and McNichols said he was.
Manning said the matter was at fact-finding stage and facts would be passed to lawyers for advice, following which a decision would be made.
In May, moves were made to suspend Sharma from office to allow a tribunal to investigate him on allegations of misconduct, and trigger impeachment processes— eight months before Sharma was scheduled to retire on January 24, 2008.
President Richards appointed a tribunal of international jurists on May 18, acting on Manning’s advice: Privy Councillor Lord Michael Mustill (UK), Sir Vincent Floissac, president of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal and former president of the Jamaican Bar Association, Dennis Morrison. They were mandated to probe if Sharma should have been removed
Sharma fought back. The Appeal Court allowed him to go to the Privy Council to order Manning and other public officials to face cross-examination challenging impeachment proceedings.