JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Monday, May 26, 2025

Law association makes another appeal to PM

by

Peter Christopher
2127 days ago
20190729

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.”


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored