FORMER Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj is convinced the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has prejudiced itself in the police investigation involving Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma and Maharaj is prepared to take the matter before the High Court for judicial review.

Maharaj says the DPP is wrong in law to release a circular, warning the media not to publish material which causes “a great risk of prejudice” to the due administration of justice involving the latest controversy with Prime Minister Patrick Manning, Attorney General John Jeremie, Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls, DPP Geoffrey Henderson and the Chief Justice.

The media circular was released last week from the office of the DPP and was signed by Deputy DPP, Carla Brown-Antoine.

The controversial circular stated in part: “… of particular concern is the publication of purported extracts of statements which are alleged to form part of an ongoing investigation being conducted by Assistant Commissioner of Police Wellington Virgil in this matter.

“… The media is advised that it may be in contempt of court to publish material which causes a great risk of prejudice to the due administration of justice even if the publications does not relate to pending proceedings.

“The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions highly deprecates the practice of publishing material which can be described as sensational, inaccurate or misleading.”

Maharaj declared further: “What the (Deputy) DPP is saying is that there is a threat, in respect of the media publications, of prejudicing the due administration of justice, since the police is conducting investigations into allegations of attempts of Chief Justice Sat Sharma to improperly influence the decision in the Panday trial.

Former AG
RAMESH
LAWRENCE
MAHARAJ

Prime Minister
PATRICK
MANNING

DPP GEOFFREY
HENDERSON

“However, at the present time, at this date, no criminal charge is pending against the Chief Justice.

“The only matter that is pending against the CJ is the action by the Prime Minister to refer his (the CJ’s) to the President in order to appoint a tribunal to investigate the allegations of misconduct.

“The CJ has filed a Judicial Review against the Prime Minister and that matter is stayed until, I think, the end of this month.

“The civil matter and the matter before the President cannot be the subject of any allegation of prejudice by the DPP because neither is a criminal matter.

“With respect to the prejudice threat the DPP is alleging, there was no announcement made by the DPP or the police that charges are about to be laid.

“The police are conducting an investigation and there is no law that prevents the media from commenting on matters which the government has released to the public in respect of these investigations.

“Both the Prime Minister and the Attorney General have made public statements in an out of parliament in which they made serious allegations against the CJ.

“Members of the media and the public have a right to comment on this matter that the government has released to the public.

“This is the critical point: if the DPP believes there may be prejudice of any criminal trial, it was the duty of the DPP to warn the Prime Minister and the Attorney General not to talk about the matter.

“If there was any wrong in releasing the information to the public, then the Prime Minister and the Attorney General are the authors of the wrong.”

The Senior Counsel then added: “The actions of the DPP are premature.

“Is it that the office of the DPP has already made up its mind on a course of action without even obtaining the report of the police investigations?

“It seems a bit odd to me; allowing the government to talk but the media can’t comment and the investigation is ongoing.

“It is a matter in which she has to reconsider her position and withdraw the circular.”

Maharaj also concluded that the concerns of the DPP with respect to prejudicing the Sharma investigation are without any foundation in law and “smack of inequality of treatment”, and moreover, seriously interferes with the constitutional rights of the freedom of the media and freedom of expression.

The former Attorney General is so peeved by the unusual posture the office of the DPP has taken in this matter, he is prepared to challenge the circular in law.

Maharaj also confided that he would be writing a legal letter to the DPP on behalf of the Civil Rights Association to ask the DPP to withdraw the directive, and if it is not withdrawn, a judicial review will be filed by the association to have the decision to write the circular and the circular to be quashed as unlawful and unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.

Maharaj declared: “The (Civil Rights) Association has already filed a number of public interest cases.

“Under the Judicial Review Act, the Civil Rights Association is entitled to file constitutional motions on behalf of the public and under Section 14 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, has a right to file a constitutional motion for the High Court to declare the circular unconstitutional and void.”

Having held the position of Attorney General under the United National Congress (UNC) Government from 1995 to 2001, Maharaj said he would have approached the controversy differently.

“If I were the Attorney General, I would not have seen a magistrate who was in the process of deciding a criminal trial in which the political executive was a party in a case so politically sensitive involving a Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister,” Maharaj stated.

“Secondly, if the person came to my office and I had him in my office, I would have told the person I could not discuss that matter and at the earliest opportunity, I would have gone before the magistrate or sent a legal representative to inform the court in the full public glare of what transpired so that the public, and the other side (the defence) would have been aware of the facts to make applications before the magistrate.

“The reason for that is, justice must not always be done, but must also appear to be done and the established rules of a judicial officer required any circumstances which could make the public believe or perceive justice is not being done, must be disclosed fully and in an open manner to both sides, to the State and the defence.”