Hon. Justice Satnarine Sharma
The public brouhaha that erupted over the controversial awarding of ‘silk’ to the Chief Justice and fellow Justice Wendell Kangaloo among others has taken an unexpected turn, with the two honorable gentlemen opting to return the awards, although based on the first statement issued by the Judiciary on the CJ’s behalf, not without some disagreement. The following is taken from that statement: “An important point is being missed in the whole controversy over the alleged breach of the separation of powers. It cannot be that the grant of an honour award by His Excellency the President to a sitting judge on the recommendation of the Honorable Prime Minister is, by itself, a breach of the separation of powers or a threat to the independence of the Judiciary, else those persons, including former chief justice, the Honorable Michael de la Bastide and the Honorable Justice Satnarine Sharma, who as sitting judges accepted national awards, would have been guilty of condoning such a breach and should consider returning them. One is left to wonder whether in the case of the recent award of silk the real objection is to the particular award, the particular judges or the particular Prime Minister.”
Now, comparing national awards to a career-advancing elevation is not arguing apples and apples in the strictest sense and I fear that the Honorable Chief Justice may have himself in fact missed the point. Once the political directorate takes upon itself the power to impact the future earnings of a sitting judge, the ‘powers’ cease to be as separate as desired. Further, bringing the Judiciary into the politics of the day by questioning the motives of the objectors is itself political and could have the effect of harming the perception of impartiality of the Judiciary to adjudicate on matters of political disagreement, especially if members of one side or the other find themselves before the courts. Adding his opinion, Senior Counsel Ernest Koylass said the judges should move immediately to take steps to protect the Judiciary from any perception of political interference and that the way in which silk was awarded should be changed entirely to remove any hint of political connection.
Former Attorney General Karl Hudson-Phillips, QC, in response to the CJ’s release, stated: “The Chief Justice has shown an alarming lack of understanding of what is thought to be a very important institution in Trinidad and Tobago under his purview. His release can be considered a perverse avoidance of a serious issue. The sole and only issue is that sitting judges should not apply for and accept silk. His release has succeeded in further embroiling the entire Judiciary in political controversy by personalising the important matter.”
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, the man many see as ‘responsible’ for the fiasco by compiling the list of ‘awardees’ in the first place, issued a statement that demonstrates his proficient grasp of circular logic – “The decision of Chief Justice Ivor Archie and Justice of Appeal Wendell Kangaloo to return the instruments which granted them the title of Senior Counsel was consistent with the dignity, humility and honour that inspired their appointment as Senior Counsel.” To my mind if Mr. Ramlogan really believed his own words as expressed, then both he and Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar should return their appointments as well, as the awarding of the honour to one’s self diminishes the title, as the award was meant for practising lawyers who had distinguished themselves at the bar. Senior Counsel Hendrickson Seunath said politicians awarding silk to themselves is also totally unacceptable. “If they award it to themselves, it is wrong.”
How we extricate ourselves from this thorny patch without doing further harm should be at the front of everyone’s minds. The fact that neither the Law Association nor its president, Dana Seetahal, was consulted during the screening of candidates who applied for silk demonstrates the extent of the political control exerted and is the absolute cause of the problem in the first place. In response to the news that the awards were returned, former Chief Justice Sat Sharma commented: “After all, the right thing has been done. They have to be complimented. They have acted in the highest tradition. What we must do is ensure that the Judiciary and the legal profession be the ones responsible for the appointment of silk. The Executive must bow out and concentrate on its Executive functions.”
That is as levelheaded a statement as any on the matter and I think the course that should be taken in the best interest of all.
Phillip Edward Alexander
