The Law Association has written to Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley urging him to reconsider his decision not to impeach Chief Justice Ivor Archie amid allegations raised by it.
In the letter signed by Patricia Dindyal on behalf of Law Association president Douglas Mendes, SC, the association said, “While we appreciate and respect the fact that the decision whether to make a representation under section 137 is yours to make, we nevertheless think it incumbent on us to draw to your attention certain methodological and analytical flaws in the advice given to you which we fear may have led you into error.”
The Law Association asked the Prime Minister to review the information provided by Queen’s Counsel Howard Stevens, particularly about the Chief Justice’s questionable actions in recommending persons for HDC homes.
The QC had stated there was a lack of evidence to pursue further action but the law group disagreed.
“Mr Stevens accepted that there was evidence that the Honourable Chief Justice had “gone further than merely putting forward names for consideration” and indeed had enlisted the assistance of a friend to “to intervene/seek favourable consideration on behalf of two applicants,” said the association in the letter.
It continued,” The question on which Mr Stevens was therefore required to advise you was whether such conduct amounts to misbehaviour under the Constitution. We are dissatisfied with the answer which you were advised to give.”
The association also noted the QC’s stance concerning alleged communication between the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister concerning the HDC application.
The QC said had there been such a communication between the two, his advice would differ.
QC Stevens gave his advice on the belief that there was no such exchange.
The Law Association in its letter, said both men’s response to this allegation still left lingering clouds over their offices which would be solved by the tribunal.
The association’s letter ended with it asking the Prime Minister to reconsider.
“Respectfully, Prime Minister, it cannot be that the important responsibility which the Constitution imposes on you under section 137 to hold the Chief Justice to account, limits you to such a passive role. Where serious allegations are made against the Chief Justice by a member of the public, who, like the Association, has no power to compel anyone to give evidence, surely it is incumbent on you to engage in some level of enquiry of your own, such as your office would permit.”