It was also a way to detect possible instances of conflict of interests
and determine which matters magistrates and judges should step down
from.
However, once the act was passed the Judiciary took the position
that letting the public know their assets would affect their independence,
make them subservient to government and prevent them from functioning
fearlessly.
“I felt that as judges they should be the first people who
want the public to know what they own, so there could be no question
of dishonesty,” said the former AG.
“The then Chief Justice, Michael de la Bastide, took the position
that the judges are in a special category and must not have to answer
to anyone in respect to their business affairs or private affairs;
and that if they had to do that their independence to decide cases
would be adversely affected.”
Many are of the view that the Integrity Commission under Deane has
now bowed to pressure to virtually suspend the law from being implemented
against Members of the Judiciary and therefore to exempt them from
having to make declarations.
Their view is based on the fact that the Commission’s position
was unknown until High Court Judge Judith Jones brought it to light
recently.
It was immediately pounced upon by the Opposition United National
Congress (UNC) who said on Tuesday that the Integrity Commission
“has no power to grant any exemption to any public official”.
This view is supported by what is called established law, dating
back to the 17th Century, that when a law is passed in Parliament
and becomes “operative law”, only the Parliament can
suspend or repeal it.
According to Maharaj: “The reason for that is government and
every State body is subject to law and not above the law.
“So what is happening is that the Integrity Commission and
the government are saying that although ordinary persons must obey
the law, the judges can be permitted to ignore the law.
“That is a denial of equal protection of the law,” added
Maharaj in support of legal view.
“And what it means is when an ordinary person does not follow
the Integrity in Public Life law can be charged for an offence,
as for example Basdeo Panday who is alleged not to have followed
the law …
“The government is saying if judges and magistrates do not
follow the law they cannot be charged for an offence.
“The accumulated effect of all of this could be that any person
charged for an offence under the Integrity of Public Life Act can
contend before the court that their prosecution is a denial of ‘equal
protection of the law’ and amounts to an abuse of the process
of the court.”
This point did not escape the UNC, who took issue to the clandestine
move in a two-page news release.
“Do judges and Magistrates have the moral and legal authority
to try Panday for allegedly committing the offence for which they
themselves are guilty?” asked the UNC, in a Press statement.
They called for the resignation of the Integrity Commissioners and
full and frank disclosure on all meetings and correspondence concerning
this issue.
“When was the decision on this exemption made?” asked
the UNC.
“Why was it not made public? “What was the role of the
Attorney General?
“Has any judge or magistrate filed their annual declaration
as required by the Integrity in Public Life Act?
“Who gave the legal advice to the Commission and what was
the cost of this advice?”
The Opposition party called Deane a “PNM favourite”
and his action a PNM move to curry favour and win over the judiciary.
“They questioned whether Deane was a PNM front-man used to
“negotiate a truce with the judiciary”.
Legal luminary Maharaj pointed to more sinister effects of this
decision.
“The signal that the government is sending to those who commit
crime is that there is nothing wrong in disobeying the law, since
the government would permit even the judicial arm of the State not
to follow the law,” he said.
|
