On 26 September, 2019, Justice Claudette Singh, Chair of the Elections Commission, signed Order No. 70 of 2019, made under the National Registration Act pursuant to the powers conferred by sections 6(1)(a), 6(A), 13, 14 and 15 of the National Registration Act. The objective of the Order was to provide for what has become known as Claims and Objections. The Order is peculiarly named The National Registration (Residents) Order and not, as would have been expected, “The National Registration (Claims and Objections) Order.” The naming of the Order unwittingly exposes its nefarious objective – to undo the decision of the Chief Justice that non-residents cannot be taken off the List.
“Claims and Objections” are provided for by section 15 of the National Registration Act. But it is not defined. However, GECOM’s Manual of Instructions does at page 10. It states: “Revision of List of Electors: Claims and Objections: The Claims and Objections exercise within the Continuous Registration process will be conducted at the registration offices and sub-offices for a specified period of time. The exercise provides eligible electors, who did not register, the opportunity to gain entry to the list of electors or to update their particulars (transfers and changes). It also provides the opportunity for objections to particulars in the Preliminary List of Electors (PLE)….”
The legal adviser to the Elections Commission came in for some blistering, public, abuse by Commissioner Desmond Trotman, who referred to the young lawyer as practising ‘deceit.’ Apparently, the opinion she gave as to the law relating to registration of electors, was not to his liking, as it contradicted the position that he and his fellow Government-appointed Commissioners had been advocating. Ms. Excellence Dazell advised as follows: “I therefore advise that procedures be put in place to ensure the revision of the list, otherwise the Commission would be acting in defiance of the law….” Ms. Dazell argued that “based on (election laws), the list must be updated bi-annually by adding persons who are now qualified to be registered, to that list, and those who are no longer qualified to be registered, to be taken off that list….”
There are two laws that are mainly relevant to registration and elections. These are the National Registration Act and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act.
In English law, fair comment on a matter of public interest is allowed. Generally, it guarantees the freedom of the press to make statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill-will, spite, or with intent to harm the subject of the comment. For decades, English courts have placed a higher burden on public figures to prove defamation, which includes both libel and slander. This is based on the view that if a person chooses public activity, that person must expect a higher degree of public scrutiny. For example, it is hardly likely that an English court will countenance a defamatory intent against a public figure where an allegation of conflict of interest is made on facts which are essentially true but could be capable of a more generous interpretation.
Fair comment is an ancient common law (judge made law) defence. But it was replaced in the Unites States in 1964 by a defence created in the case of New York Times v Sullivan in which the US Supreme Court decided that actual malice has to be proved to establish defamation. Since it is very difficult to prove actual malice in a journalist or a politician in the cut and thrust of journalism or politics, public life in the US has been largely liberated from the fear of defamation. While the defence of fair comment remained in the U.K. it was increasingly found to be too restrictive for adequate scrutiny of public officials. The courts of the UK have never adopted New York Times v Sullivan but began to test a more liberal approach to criticisms of public officials.
Sex and politics intersected in an explosive controversy that has gripped the United States as Professor Christine Blasey Ford gave evidence last Thursday to the United States Senate about a sexual assault perpetrated against her in the summer of 1982 by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the US Supreme Court.
The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee of the US Senate initially refused to hear Professor Blasey Ford. However, public pressure forced the Judiciary Committee to reopen the hearing.
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.