ARE THE AUTHORITIES SLIGHTING OUR JUDGES?

THE curious decision not to invite judges to President’s House for the annual awards function is still a troubling issue in the judiciary.

In a baffling explanation, President’s House said there was no room to accommodate the judges at the prestigious Republic Day event.

But members of the judiciary were comfortably fitted in at previous similar functions.

Only Appeal Court judges were invited to the recent opening of Parliament, another break from longstanding tradition.

Several jurists have been discussing what they term “a deliberate slight” against the judiciary and wondering if it is an expression of the authorities’ anger over certain recent issues.

The Government has lost several crucial legal matters in recent months, with some judges even delivering stinging criticisms of the authorities.

There have also been tiffs between the ruling administration and some judges.

In May, the judiciary responded after National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds uttered a broadside against judges.

Hinds said that “criminals have friends in the judiciary” which had “a dangerous effect of undermining public trust and confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law.”

The judiciary criticised the “unfortunate statement” by Hinds.

Before the judiciary’s response, at least 11 judges called for the minister to issue an apology and retraction.

Attorney General Reginald Armour rushed to Hinds’ defence, saying “it was not the intention of the minister… to impugn the integrity of the judiciary…”

Justice Devindra Rampersad was not comforted by Armour’s statement, noting: “The minister clearly stated that criminals have friends in the judiciary.”

Justice Rampersad had previously ruled against the State in the high-profile matter involving firearms dealer Brent Thomas.

The judge suggested that Hinds’ remark was pointed at him.

He said the fact that the judiciary did not immediately respond to the minister’s comment “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.”

In April, there was a major bust-up between Hinds and Justice Frank Seepersad, after the latter’s decision to visit death row in the city prison.

Hinds questioned whether the visit was “purposeful.”

Justice Seepersad responded that “there may be an impending constitutional crisis and/or overt attempt by a member of the executive to interfere with judicial independence and the exercise of judicial discretion and authority.”

He added: “It would be unfathomable that any politician or member of the executive would have the temerity to challenge the efficacy of an order issued by the court…”

In public addresses, Seepersad has also been critical of the authorities.

In late May, he said: “Crime is out of control, many are struggling to make their basic daily requirements and there exists an unacceptable degree of divisiveness, dishonesty and disingenuous discourse.”

He criticised the state of society, saying it could implode if people fail to act.

Courts have upheld litigation by opposition-linked civic activist Ravi Balgobin Maharaj, in which he challenged decisions by the Government or arms of the State.

They include an appeal to prevent the appointment of an acting police commissioner and an attempt to prevent the postponement of the local government election.

The election matter was upheld by the Privy Council, which said: “Parliament cannot override fundamental rights or the rule of law by general or ambiguous words.”

The verdict forced Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley to call the election earlier than planned; the poll was held on August 14.

Balgobin also won several matters pertaining to Freedom of Information Act requests.

He is currently pursuing a matter in the Privy Council on the appointment of Patrick Ferreira as chairman of National Insurance Board.

His challenge against the extension of the term of office of Police Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher is also at the Privy Council.

Notably, Chief Justice Ivor Archie has not been personally at the forefront in defending and supporting jurists who are involved in public controversies.

In 2019, Rowley declined to trigger Section 137 of the national constitution to begin impeachment proceedings against Archie.

The Law Association had voted in favour of impeaching the Chief Justice.

Rowley told the media he was not getting involved in the “kangkatang.”

Several judges feel the non-invitation to the President’s House was an attempt to undermine the importance of the judiciary and to show displeasure against its critical rulings.

One judge said: “This appears to be a calculated move to demean and disparage the judiciary.”

Archie, who also heads the National Awards Committee, did not comment on the matter.