Ivor Archie has been the Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago (TT) for ten years and is a prominent judicial personality in the Caribbean. On 12 November 2017 the Sunday Express alleged that the Chief Justice had tried to influence Supreme Court Justices to change their state-provided personal security in favor of a private company with which his close friend, Dillian Johnson, a convicted felon, was associated. On 19 November the Sunday Express published another article alleging that Dillion Johnson was among 12 persons recommended for Housing Development Corporation units by the Chief Justice. On 4 December the Express reported that the Chief Justice, 57, was joined by Dillion Johnson, 36, while on official business abroad (Guyana). Photographs were published apparently showing Johnson lying in a bed and the Chief Justice sitting at the edge, backing the camera, on the telephone and another showing Johnson with a lanyard around his neck holding an identification card allegedly with the printed name of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice claimed that the photographs were photoshopped.
On 29 November the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) appointed a committee to “ascertain/substantiate” the facts upon which the allegations made against the Chief Justice were alleged to be based. On 30 November the President of the LATT met with the Chief Justice and informed him that having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and his failure to respond, the LATT has decided to investigate the allegations to determine whether they are true or not. The LATT offered the Chief Justice the opportunity to respond to the allegations even though it recognized that it had no power to compel him to do so. It, however, mentioned that it intended to refer its report to the Prime Minister which falls within its statutory mandate.
It has long been recognized that the judiciary and its decisions are not and should not be immune from criticisms. It’s quite a different matter to attribute motives to the judiciary that can be construed as improper such as failing to consider or to implement executive policy. Two contrasting approaches were displayed recently by Mr. Aubrey Heath-Retemeyer, Deputy Director of the State Agency for the Recovery of Assets (SARA) and Minister Khemraj Ramjattan, Minister of Public Security.
Mr. Aubrey Heath-Retemeyer’s, in an interview by KN on June 22, accused the judiciary of resisting the government’s drive to reduce corruption because they are not willing to facilitate SOCU or SARA. He said that there is a “stark disconnection between the judiciary and the thirst of the nation for an end to corruption…I feel that sometimes the legal system here…doesn’t want to be in step with the honest desire of the law enforcement people (like SOCU) to ensure that they get the job done. I feel that if there was a greater sense of urgency and understanding on the part of the legal people and the system, they would be more willing to facilitate what SOCU or SARA would be doing.”
Since the retirement of Chancellor (ag) Carl Singh and Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang, the issue of their replacement has been at the forefront of discourse, at least privately, in legal circles, but occasionally in the media. I myself have written about the issue once when I called on President Granger to appoint persons to fill the posts which had become vacant and had remained so for several months. I was quite pleased when the President made acting appointments of Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards as Chancellor (ag) and of Justice George-Wiltshire S.C. as Chief Justice (ag). Justice George-Wiltshire S.C. who was also subsequently appointed as an Appeal Court Judge.
These two acting appointments, which only required consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, were enormously popular in the legal profession. After some months as acting appointees, I can say with certainty that the anticipated performances of the Chancellor (ag) and Chief Justice (ag) have exceeded expectations amidst enormous challenges, which had commenced under the chancellorship of Carl Singh, not least among which are the implementation of the new Civil Procedure Rules, the establishment of courts with new jurisdictions for family and sexual offences, the appointment of additional judges and a building programme to house courts, magistrates and judges. I believe that this opinion is shared by the legal profession.
There was a signing bonus. It was known but denied by several Ministers of the Government. There should be consequences but the precedent has long been established that ministerial responsibilities are not recognized and therefore consequences do not flow from their actions or omissions. Unless there is a mass upsurge, which is unlikely, this uniquely unjustifiable deed will continue to be defended, as it was in or just out of the National Assembly. There is no excuse for the secrecy and any attempt to defend it is an insult to the Guyanese people. Transparency International called it “deception.”
In Guyana, politics is a zero-sum game. Rules of transparency and accountability are weak and where they exist are not enforced. No conventions have not been established or are entrenched. The prevailing wisdom, therefore, is to give the Opposition and the Guyanese people as little as possible, and where possible, nothing. This is the national, political culture derived from its core defect, the politics of ethno-political domination, which implies that the other side are their supporters are enemies and not to be trusted – with anything. It’s us and them, sometimes, us or them. And the people are the pawns. This is the reason why the APNU-AFC coalition, when in opposition, could have been so strident in defence of transparency and accountability, and can now so blithely dismiss such concepts with contempt.
Minister Khemraj Ramjattan, of “Hall Yuh Ass” fame, responded to my article last Sunday, entitled, “To preserve itself, the AFC must resign from the Government,” with the following epithets – “nonsensical;” “vacuous chatter;” “idiotic;” “we are not going to block [the] chatterati;” “foolish;” “Ralph kept his mouth shut then he got shelved now he is talking plenty;” “if he wants to be a politician he should go form a party then know what it is;” “these fellas love to talk from a distance like parrot, you know parrot telling donkey how to bat but stays up in the tree, they want to stay up in the tree and not do the batting themselves, you write exactly what I say there.” Sadly, by succumbing to the temptation of the politics of abuse, Mr. Ramjattan exposes the inability of the AFC to answer serious questions about its political posture.
Would you believe that this was the same Khemraj Ramjattan who embraced me at the post 2015 election celebration at the Pegasus Hotel in congratulation for what he believed was my contribution to the victory of the APNU+AFC coalition? Well, he did. At the same event, Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo thanked me in the presence of several persons. Now Minister Ramjattan is abusive and PM Nagamootoo uses the Chronicle to denigrate me.