(Trinidad Express) Maintaining their stance that they did no wrong, Chief Justice Ivor Archie and Justice of Appeal Wendell Kangaloo yesterday returned the instruments which granted them the title of Senior Counsel to President George Maxwell Richards.
In the face of a firestorm of criticism, Archie and Kangaloo requested a meeting by mid-afternoon with Richards at the Office of the President in St Ann’s, Port of Spain, where they surrendered their instruments.
The action came even as the Council of the Law Association met behind closed doors to debate a proposal to convene an emergency meeting of all lawyers to debate the issue.
A statement from the Court Protocol and Information Manager Jones P Madeira issued yesterday evening stated: “Both the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Kangaloo remain firm in their view that no wrong was committed in their acceptance of silk from the President, and that their actions are very defensible and breached no protocol which was previously adhered to.
“However, they are deeply concerned that the heightening controversy has the potential to impact negatively on the Judiciary of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, and the relations it treasures with its stakeholders.”
Reacting to the news, former chief justices Michael de la Bastide, QC, and Satnarine Sharma, former attorney-general Karl Hudson-Phillips, QC, and former president of the Law Association Martin Daly, SC, commended the judges for their stance.
“I congratulate them on having done the right thing. It’s what I expected them to do,” de la Bastide said in a telephone interview.
“I am relieved that the proper thing has been done,” Hudson-Phillips stated yesterday, in an e-mail response.
“After all, the right thing has been done. They have to be complimented. They have acted in the highest tradition. What we must do is ensure the Judiciary and the legal profession be the ones responsible for the appointment of silk. The Executive must bow out and concentrate on its Executive functions,” said Sharma in a telephone interview.
Daly, also speaking by telephone, said, “I am proud of the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Kangaloo. They have provided an important example of considered leadership. It is a just a shame that other persons felt the need to mount personal attacks and to try and shoot the messengers.”
Earlier yesterday, Archie issued another release, refusing to acknowledge mounting pressure for him to return the instrument granting the award of silk, saying the attacks against him and Kangaloo were personal. He called on two of his critics, de la Bastide and Sharma, who were awarded this nation’s highest award, the Trinity Cross, in 1996 and 2003, respectively, to return those awards if the argument of accepting an honour or award from the Prime Minister can be seen as a threat to the independence of the Judiciary or a breach of the doctrine of the Separation of Powers between the Executive and the Judiciary.
But Archie’s suggestion was dismissed by one former judge, who said national awards were open to everyone, while silk can only be awarded to lawyers. Since independence, the practice has been that Chief Justices were automatically given the nation’s highest award.
Archie’s statement came on the heels of a series of events over the last 24 hours, which saw: President Richards calling in his legal advisers to get advice on the issue; the Chief Justice and Justice Kangaloo seeking a private audience with him; private meetings between Archie and at least four named Senior Counsel; and the drafting of a petition by top lawyers calling upon the Council of the Law Association to convene an emergency meeting of all lawyers to debate the issue, and an attempt by judges to convene a meeting to discuss the issue.
Archie’s acceptance of silk has caused grave concern among the judges polled by the Express, who said public perception of the head of the Judiciary accepting a “gift” from Government can definitely erode the public’s confidence in the independence of the Judiciary.
Members of the magistracy also expressed similar concerns and called for a speedy resolution of the matter.
Archie’s acceptance of silk drew stinging criticism from Hudson-Phillips, de la Bastide, Sharma and Daly, among other commentators.
In a one-page statement issued early yesterday morning on his behalf by Madeira, the Chief Justice stated: “An important point is being missed in the whole controversy over the alleged breach of the (doctrine of the) Separation of Powers (between the Executive and Judiciary).
“It cannot be that the grant of an honour of an award by His Excellency the President to a sitting judge, on the recommendation of the Honourable Prime Minister is, by itself, a breach of the Separation of Powers or a threat to the independence of the Judiciary, else those persons, including former chief justice the Honourable Michael de la Bastide and the Honourable Mr Justice Satnarine Sharma, who as sitting judges accepted national awards, would have been guilty of condoning such a breach and should consider returning them.
“One is left to wonder whether in the case of the recent award of silk the real objection is to the particular award, the particular judges or the particular prime minister. If there can be some clarity on that issue, then perhaps we can have meaningful and constructive debate.”
The release noted that the Chief Justice had been following the debate, “albeit by a few”, surrounding the recent award of silk to himself and Justice Kangaloo, whom he described as the “longest serving member of the Bench and the most senior appellate judge”.
But Archie’s statement drew an almost immediate response from Hudson-Phillips, who stated that the Chief Justice has shown “an alarming lack of understanding of what is thought to be a very important institution in Trinidad and Tobago under his purview. His release can be considered a perverse avoidance of a serious issue. The sole and only issue is that sitting judges should not apply for and accept silk”.
“His release has succeeded in further embroiling the entire Judiciary in political controversy by personalising the important matter. Now some may well begin to ask if silk is the only thing the honourable Chief Justice and his brother judge should honourably return and re-enter private practice,” Hudson-Phillips stated.
