(Trinidad Guardian) The Judiciary has condemned a controversial statement made by National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds alleging that criminals have friends within that fraternity.
The Judiciary broke its silence on the issue after ten of the 16 High Court Judges assigned to the civil division of the Supreme Court called for an official response to Hinds’ statement on Wednesday.
Describing the statement as unfortunate, the release said: “The Judiciary notes that gratuitous statements such as those made by the Honourable Minister have a dangerous effect of undermining public trust and confidence in the Judiciary and the rule of law and as such have no place in society.”
In a televised statement on Monday, Hinds sought to address a constitutional lawsuit brought by firearm dealer Brent Thomas over his prosecution for firearm offences, which was upheld by High Court Judge Devindra Rampersad last week.
During the event, Hinds reportedly stated that “criminals have friends everywhere in this country. They have them in the Police Service, they have them in the Customs, in the Immigration, in the Defence Force, they have them in the Judiciary, they have them in Parliament.”
On Wednesday, however, Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, issued a press release defending Hinds. He stated that after viewing Hinds’ statement and having a conversation with him (Hinds), he felt that he (Hinds) never intended to besmirch the Judiciary or its judicial officers.
Armour said: “I am satisfied that it was not the intention of the minister, in any way, to impugn the integrity of the Judiciary of this country, either in any particular matter or generally.”
But in a email thread after Armour issued his statement, which was obtained by Guardian Media, the judges, including Justice Rampersad, all called for the Judiciary to issue a “strong and unequivocal release and condemnation of the statement along with a demand for an apology and retraction.”
Justice Rampersad, who initiated the discourse with the Judiciary’s Court Protocol and Information Manager Carl Francis, suggested that Hinds’ statement was not ambiguous.
“If there is any inference to be made, one can arguably say that the general remark that criminals have friends in the Judiciary was also a pointed attack at the author of the judgment,” Justice Rampersad said.
“The very fact that a remark can be made without any immediate response from our side that criminals have friends in the Judiciary not only undermines the administration of justice, but impacts upon the security of each member of the Judiciary who may be perceived as friends of criminals,” he added.
Justice Karen Reid concurred with Justice Rampersad.
“The remark was most unfortunate and in this climate where it appears that the Judiciary has been under continuous attack in political discourse. This matter must be swiftly and strongly dealt with,” she said.
Justice Frank Seepersad, who was involved in an incident last month where Hinds questioned his official visit to the Port-of-Spain State Prison, also weighed in on the issue.
“What is happening is simply unacceptable. With each passing week, the attacks and oversteps by the Honourable Minister of National Security continue unabated,” Justice Seepersad said.
In his email, Justice Ricky Rahim said he came to the same conclusion as his colleagues after watching Hinds’ statement several times.
“I am of the view that this statement may be viewed as an incursion over the boundary between the Executive and the Judiciary and as a stab at the heart of judicial independence,” Justice Rahim said.
“It casts a wide net that may have the potential of bringing the entire Judiciary into disrepute. It does not appear to be a fair comment from which we are by no means immune,” he added.
He suggested that a strong statement from the Judiciary would also shield non-judicial staff.
“As you are aware, the Judiciary consists of thousands of hardworking citizens throughout the length and breadth of this country who deserve to be protected from unwarranted accusations,” he said.
Other judges who made the call for a retraction were Justices Carol Gobin, Joan Charles, Nadia Kangaloo, Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell, Avason Quinlan-Williams. Justice Allyson Ramkerrysingh, who presides in the family division, also called for a retraction and an apology.
However, the Judiciary’s response to the call from the majority of its judges in the civil division was not warmly received by all those who clamoured for it.
One judge, who spoke with Guardian Media under the condition of anonymity, suggested that it was too tame in the circumstances.
“Goes to show how misguided the priorities of the Judiciary are,” the judge said.
“When 10 of the 16 civil judges, many of whom rarely come out of their comfort zone, say this is wrong…it tells you something,” the judge added.
