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.

Friday, July 18, 2025

Promotion rumours of 3 judges leaked

JLSC posts ‘late’ vacancy ad

by

Derek Achong
2318 days ago
20190314
Justice Frank Seepersad

Justice Frank Seepersad

Ru­mours of the Ju­di­cial and Le­gal Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (JLSC) seek­ing to el­e­vate three fe­male High Court Judges to the Court of Ap­peal have been met with dis­qui­et from some of their col­leagues.

In a let­ter sent to JLSC chair­man and Chief Jus­tice Ivor Archie on Wednes­day, which was ob­tained by Guardian Me­dia, out­spo­ken High Court Judge Frank Seep­er­sad ques­tioned whether it (JLSC) was mov­ing to fill three up­com­ing va­can­cies with­in the Court of Ap­peal.

Ap­pel­late Judge Pe­ter Ja­madar is ex­pect­ed to be ap­point­ed to the Caribbean Court of Jus­tice (CCJ) in Ju­ly while his col­leagues Ra­jen­dra Nar­ine and Al­lan Men­don­ca are ex­pect­ed to re­tire lat­er this year.

In the one-page let­ter, Seep­er­sad ques­tioned whether ad­ver­tise­ments had been is­sued for the po­si­tions, as the mer­it list used for pro­mo­tions of Ap­pel­late Judges Pe­ter Ra­jku­mar and Char­maine Pem­ber­ton in 2017 had ex­pired af­ter a year.

“It is my un­der­stand­ing that in the ab­sence of a cur­rent and valid mer­it list, the process and method of ap­point­ment would re­quire in­ter alia the ef­fect­ing of ad­ver­tise­ments, the at­ten­dance at in­ter­views and the sit­ting of ex­am­i­na­tions in­clud­ing psy­cho­me­t­ric test­ing,” Seep­er­sad said.

Seep­er­sad al­so ques­tioned whether the process of se­lec­tion and ap­point­ments had been changed.

How­ev­er, while Seep­er­sad was still await­ing a re­sponse yes­ter­day the JLSC is­sued an ad­ver­tise­ment for the po­si­tions, which it is said it is seek­ing to fill by June this year. The ad­ver­tise­ment stat­ed that can­di­dates should be High Court judges with three years of ex­pe­ri­ence and told ap­pli­cants they should ap­ply no lat­er than March 29.

“Per­sons who have ap­plied pre­vi­ous­ly and who still wish to be con­sid­ered are ad­vised to re-ap­ply,” the ad­ver­tise­ment stat­ed.

De­spite the in­for­ma­tion con­tained in the ad­ver­tise­ment, ju­di­cial sources claimed a JLSC mem­ber re­cent­ly con­tact­ed at least one of the three ear­marked can­di­dates and in­formed her of her pend­ing pro­mo­tion. Ac­cord­ing to the sources, the se­nior judge re­port­ed­ly ex­pressed reser­va­tions over the de­ci­sion, as she point­ed out the mer­it list for ju­di­cial pro­mo­tions had ex­pired and she had not reap­plied for the po­si­tion.

As a sec­ondary is­sue, Seep­er­sad ques­tioned whether the JLSC was await­ing rec­ti­fi­ca­tion of its flawed com­po­si­tion be­fore de­cid­ing on the ap­point­ments.

The is­sue of the JLSC’s com­po­si­tion was raised by Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC) ac­tivist De­vant Ma­haraj fol­low­ing the short-lived ap­point­ment of for­mer chief mag­is­trate Mar­cia Ay­ers-Cae­sar in 2017. Ay­ers-Cae­sar re­signed amid pub­lic furore over the 53 cas­es she left un­fin­ished up­on tak­ing up the ap­point­ment, cas­es which had to be restart­ed as a re­sult of her pro­mo­tion.

Ma­haraj filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing de­ci­sions by suc­ces­sive pres­i­dents to ap­point more than one sit­ting or re­tired judge to the JLSC. He lost his claim in the lo­cal High Court and Court of Ap­peal, but in Feb­ru­ary the Privy Coun­cil agreed with Ma­haraj’s claim that re­tired judges could not qual­i­fy for the posts of two ex-of­fi­cio JLSC mem­bers, who are re­quired to have le­gal train­ing and are not in ac­tive prac­tice.

At the time when the Court of Ap­peal dis­missed Ma­haraj’s claim, the JLSC mem­bers were Archie, Pub­lic Ser­vice Com­mis­sion head Mau­reen Man­chouck and re­tired judges Roger Hamel-Smith, Humphrey Stollmey­er and at­tor­ney Ernest Koy­lass, SC.

While the case was pend­ing, Hamel-Smith and Stollmey­er re­signed cit­ing “per­son­al rea­sons” and un­fair pub­lic crit­i­cism of their work on the JLSC.

Ap­pel­late Judge Char­maine Pem­ber­ton and at­tor­ney David Patrick were sub­se­quent­ly ap­point­ed to re­place them and to prop­er­ly con­sti­tute the JLSC.

How­ev­er, af­ter the Privy Coun­cil weighed in on the is­sue, it was re­vealed Pem­ber­ton was ap­point­ed un­der the wrong sub­sec­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion. In a let­ter to Ma­haraj, late last month, Pres­i­dent Paula-Mae Weekes ad­mit­ted the er­ror was made un­der the tenure of her pre­de­ces­sor An­tho­ny Car­mona and promised to rec­ti­fy it at “the ear­li­est.”

Guardian Me­dia sent an email to Weekes’ com­mu­ni­ca­tions ad­vi­sor Cheryl Lala yes­ter­day af­ter­noon to con­firm if the er­ror had since been rec­ti­fied.

Lala did not re­spond up to late yes­ter­day.

The is­sue of the process used by the JLSC for se­lec­tion of judges was al­so con­sid­ered by a spe­cial com­mit­tee of the Law As­so­ci­a­tion. The com­mit­tee pub­lished a re­port in June last year and rec­om­mend­ed that the JLSC be re­placed with a more in­de­pen­dent and trans­par­ent body. It al­so rec­om­mend­ed that the pro­posed body should pub­lish the el­i­gi­bil­i­ty cri­te­ria and the process of se­lec­tion, as there are no ex­ten­sive of­fi­cial pub­li­ca­tions on the is­sues cur­rent­ly.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored