OUTSPOKEN jurist Frank Seepersad is a source of much anxiety to certain senior officials of the PNM Government, who want him disciplined.
Justice Seepersad has so unnerved the administration’s top brass that consideration is being given to lodging a formal report to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission.
The High Court jurist has routinely criticised the state of national governance and the performance of public officials.
In March, he stated: “We cannot condone corruption, the lack of accountability, or turn a blind eye to the obvious dishonest conduct because of ethnic or political allegiances.”
He called for a zero-tolerance approach to corruption, and criticised “leaders and decision-makers” who “defile, disrespect and disregard their oaths of office.”
The judge also damned “the propaganda of politicians, the greed of business owners, the failings within our justice system, the biased agendas of power brokers…”
Justice Seepersad, who in January was given India’s highest award to non-residents of Indian origin, has also spoken on behalf of the poor and same-sex couples.
The Commission is empowered to “exercise disciplinary control” over judges, in accordance with provisions of the Judicial and Legal Service Act.
Judges are forbidden from any involvement in political activities.
The Commission is headed by Tobago-born Chief Justice Ivor Archie.
In July 2019, Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley rejected a formal request from the Law Association to trigger impeachment proceedings against Archie.
The Association asked that Rowley act under the provisions of Section 137 of the national constitution.
The Prime Minister later said: “The legal advice I have indicates that I don’t need to or I should not acquiesce to the Law Association’s advice, so we move on.”
In recent years, Rowley has been a heavy critic of the judiciary.
In 2011, while he was Leader of the Opposition, he issued an “unreserved apology” to Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh and the judiciary for “any misunderstanding or perceived injury” caused by his remarks on a judicial ruling.
The judiciary had earlier expressed “grave concern” over Rowley’s comments, terming them “an unwarranted and unjustified attack” on a judge and “potentially injurious to the administration of justice.”
In 2019, Rowley criticised the judiciary and the Law Association, prompting a rebuke that he was attempting to politicise the administration of justice.
The Prime Minister claimed then that the judiciary has sympathies for criminals.
Judges were generally criticised at a two-day conference on crime by regional leaders, held in Port of Spain in April.
Rowley and a team of Cabinet ministers recently held discussions with Archie on the delivery of justice.
With respect to the agitation of certain senior administration officials over Seepersad’s stinging comments, a well-placed source said: “They want action to be taken.
“They say the comments are unprecedented, unjustified and out of bounds.”
But a senior member of the legal profession, responding to an enquiry from this newspaper, stated: “Judges, like all other citizens, are guaranteed freedom of speech.”
He noted that Justice Seepersad has not publicly commented on any matter that is being litigated before the courts.
The judge irked Government officials in April when he visited Death Row in the national prison during a legal trial.
In June 2020, Seepersad reported death threats.
The Law Association commented that while death threats to judges are rare, they are “an attempt to directly undermine the authority and independence of the judiciary.”
The Association stressed: “The judiciary is the guardian of democracy and the cornerstone of a democratic society based on the rule of law.
“Judges are entrusted with the fundamental role of the protection of rights, and must, at all cost, be able to function without fear, favour, bias or prejudice.”
