The Controversy Eroding Trust in Trinidad & Tobago’s Judiciary Culminates in Chief Justice ‘No Confidence’ Vote · Global Voices
Judiciary of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Image by <PERSON>, CC BY 2.0
In one of the largest turnouts ever, members of professional organisation Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT) met on the night of June 2, 2017 and passed a motion of no confidence against the country's chief justice, <PERSON>.
Members voted on five resolutions — a loss of confidence in the chief justice and in his position as the chairman of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC), a loss of confidence in the JLSC itself, and finally, a call for both the chief justice and JLSC members to resign.
The JLSC is an independent service commission established under Section 110 of the country's Constitution. It enjoys, among other things, the authority to advise the president on the appointment of judges (other than the chief justice), to discipline those holding high legal office, and even to revoke such appointments.
LATT members who voted in favour of passing the resolutions were, in most instances, double those who voted against. One of the country's most respected Senior Counsels, <PERSON>, interpreted the vote — which was mostly a symbolic move, as the chief justice is not a LATT member — as “a watershed moment for accountability”.
A High Court appointment creates delays in justice for prisoners
The whole to-do started back in April 2017, after the JLSC announced the appointment of several new judges to the High Court, including <PERSON>, the country’s first female chief magistrate.
Despite the hearty welcome <PERSON> received, things quickly unravelled when it was revealed that she had failed to declare a backlog of unresolved cases to the commission. Several people charged with crimes who were imprisoned while awaiting trial before her created a disturbance in the cellblock area of a courthouse when they were told that her appointment to the High Court would result in their matters being delayed.
Trinidad and Tobago's justice system is already beleaguered, with defendants often being held in remand for years without having their cases heard.
<PERSON>-Caesar subsequently resigned, but the fallout has been immense. On April 27, in an effort to contain the damage to the JLSC's reputation, the chief justice — who chairs the body — issued a press statement responding to <PERSON> admission, in which he said she “failed to manage the transition from the magistracy to the High Court in a way which ensured that undue hardship was not placed on stakeholders”. 957
He added that both he and the JLSC “were not made aware of the full extent of her obligation” before she was sworn in as a judge.
When the court of public opinion did not buy into the premise that the JLSC was unaware of Ayers-Caesar's unfinished case load, the chief justice provided a second statement, in which he maintained that the magistrate told him in a telephone conversation that “she had no other outstanding matters”.
‘It could seriously erode public confidence in the administration of justice’
It was at this point that the JLSC asked for an audit “to ascertain the true state of affairs”. The audit revealed a very different reality — the list of Ayers-Caesar's outstanding trials had risen from three to more than 10, and the total number of cases in excess of 50. An emergency meeting was called on April 27:
The JLSC was unanimously of the view that the discrepancy […] was large enough to call into question one of the bases upon which Mrs. <PERSON> had been selected — her case management ability — and [that] it could seriously erode public confidence in the administration of justice and, by extension, the whole selection process.
While much of mainstream and social media were pegging the situation as a “judicial crisis”, attorney <PERSON>, who was interviewed on one of the popular morning shows, assessed the ordeal as an administrative error, not an error in judicial function. Further explaining his view to Global Voices, he said although the chief justice and the JLSC may have fallen beneath the standards of due diligence, there was no moral or legal infringement of the office that would warrant a call for resignations. <PERSON> boycotted the no confidence motion, taking the position that it was not valid LATT business.
While the JLSC's statement admitted that “the situation was sufficiently grave to trigger a disciplinary enquiry”, in the end, Ayers-Caesar was allowed to resign from the High Court and return to the Magistracy to tie up loose ends. 600