The Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Barton Scotland, having declined to reverse his declaration on December 21, 2018, that the no confidence motion against the Government had been carried on a vote of 33-32 in favour, has shifted the arena of contest to the Court.
The constitutional provisions which have been automatically triggered by the passage of the no confidence motion, by now well-known, state: “106(6) The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by a vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence. (7) Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election.”
Ryan Crawford, whose middle name you will have to guess, is an attorney-at-law in practice in Berbice, and the son of the late Marcel Crawford, one of the Ancient County’s distinguished lawyers. He was the victim of a stop on the East Coast public road by police on Thursday last, presumably while on his way up to Berbice. Mr. Crawford became incensed and let loose as tirade of expletives, objecting to the stop by the police. Punctuated by a repetitive flow of profanity, Mr. Crawford declared his name, but with a qualifying expletive for his surname. With the same descriptive dexterity, he demanded that the police should tell him why he was … stopped, while at the same time informing the policeman that he can only be …. stopped if he was …. suspected of having committed a …. crime. He challenged the police to inform the …. President and the …. Vice President and whoever the …. else he wanted to and then drove off.
The incident was recorded and found it way on social media and, as is to be expected, there were many comments, some supportive and some condemnatory. The supportive comments expressed in various ways disapproval of the police activity of stopping vehicles on the road for no apparent reason, then requesting driving licences. A police stop is often accompanied by the inevitable request for a “raise.” Despite the decades of criticism of this type of police activity, nothing has ever been done by the authorities to restrain it.
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.”
The offence of misconduct in public office carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is what is known as a ‘common law’ offence and is triable on indictment. This means that it is is derived from judge-made law of England which Guyana has legally inherited. And it is triable by jury. The maximum penalty suggests that it is regarded as a very serious offence.
While the offence can be traced back to the 13th century, a definition, given by Chief Justice Lord Mansfield in the 1783 case of R v Rembridge emphasized its importance: “…. first that a man accepting an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit, is answerable criminally to the King for misbehavior in his office; …. Secondly, where there is a breach of trust, fraud or imposition in a matter concerning the public, though as between individuals it would be actionable, yet as between the King and the subject it is indictable. That such should be the rule is essential to the existence of the country.”