Dear Editor,
The Chief Justice of Trinidad, Sat Sharma, should never have been indicted for perversion of justice or referred to an international tribunal for possible impeachment and removal from office. The trial of the CJ holds important lessons for Guyana and Caribbean jurisprudence.
The CJ broke no laws and has now been cleared by the International Tribunal appointed by the President to investigate his conduct in office. From the outset when this matter came to light 18 months ago, I pointed out that the government had a very weak case against the CJ. Judicial analysts also said the case against the CJ was very weak and felt that Prime Minister, Patrick Manning should never have referred the CJ for impeachment especially as the main accuser refused to give testimony against the CJ in a criminal trial. The handling of the matter had brought the government, judiciary, the Attorney General, and the DPP’s office into disrepute and made it appear that they were all out to get the CJ.
Readers would recall that the CJ was accused of trying to undermine the verdict in the Basdeo Panday criminal trial having to do with an undeclared bank account in England. Panday neglected to declare his bank account to the Integrity Commission. He was indicted and ordered to stand trial where he was found guilty by the Chief Magistrate and sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour and fined (forfeiture of the accounts of about one million British pounds). The verdict was successfully appealed. The Appellate Court said the Chief Magistrate was biased and reversed his judgment while ordering a new trial under a different magistrate.
The Chief Magistrate, Sherman McNicolls, complained to the Prime Minister that CJ Sharma sought to influence his judgment to render a not guilty verdict in the Panday trial. But the CJ disputed that charge. Yet Manning called on the CJ to resign or face a criminal trial in which case he would be automatically removed from office. Sharma held his ground saying that McNicolls was lying against him and he agreed to stand trial rather than leave office in disgrace. Sharma had claimed that the Chief Magistrate had told him that the case against Panday was weak and that he believed Panday’s explanation for the bank accounts and was leaning towards a not guilty verdict. Sharma also said he told the Chief Magistrate that he (Sharma) was concerned about a corrupt land transaction involving the CM, an agent of the government, and a witness in the Panday trial.
At Sharma’s criminal trial, McNicolls refused to give testimony because it was reported he did not want to be cross examined by Sharma’s lawyers. So the trial was abandoned with much embarrassment to the DPP’s office, the CM and the government. Manning proceeded to file impeachment charges against Sharma. McNicolls once again agreed to testify against Sharma before a tribunal, which reports stated he had hoped would be private. But under pressure, the international tribunal agreed to hear the case against Sharma in public in full glare of the media and allowing the lawyers for each party to the dispute to cross examine witnesses. When McNicolls was cross examined, the case against Sharma appeared weaker than many thought. McNicolls could not provide logical and reasoned explanations for a cheque he received after the Panday trial and before he handed down the guilty verdict against Panday. Senior lawyers were critical of McNicolls and wrote that he should be removed as Chief Magistrate if he did not resign. There were all kinds of commentaries in the media explaining the weaknesses in the case against Sharma. The government was criticized for wasting millions of dollars on the tribunal hearings and in the criminal case against Sharma.
The international tribunal in its judgment criticized the CJ for certain speeches he gave but reserved its harshest criticism for the Chief Magistrate and the Attorney General for making a case against the CJ. They were also particularly critical of the AG for not showing up at the public hearing to be cross examined by Sharma’s lawyers. Meanwhile, McNicolls himself, is facing the courts and possible removal from office for refusing to testify in the criminal trial of Sharma.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
