More Twists and Turns in Trinidad & Tobago’s Chief Justice Fiasco · Global Voices
Chief Justice <PERSON> speaks to the first group of graduates of the OAS-supported pilot drug treatment court in 2014. Photo by OEA – OAS, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
The imbroglio between the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT), Chief Justice <PERSON> and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) continues to be fluid and fast-changing.
<PERSON> speaks out
In one of the controversy's latest twists, <PERSON>, the magistrate turned judicial appointee whose untended case load prompted a no-confidence vote aimed at the chief justice, has revealed that she “was put under pressure to resign”.
Her position was outlined in a letter to President <PERSON>, dated May 19, 2017, in which she asked him to acknowledge that her resignation letter is “of no legal effect” and her removal as a High Court judge “unlawful and unconstitutional”. Copies of the letter were sent to the chief justice and the JLSC.
According to <PERSON> timeline, on April 10, 2017 — two days before her High Court appointment — <PERSON> asked whether she had any part-heard matters. On April 11, she learned that there were 28 outstanding matters at the Port of Spain Magistrates’ Court; she sent the list to <PERSON>. Her appointment as a judge took place as planned on April 12.
Then, on April 25, she had a meeting with <PERSON> and the acting chief magistrate, who advised her that she actually had 52 outstanding matters. In a meeting with the chief justice the very next day, <PERSON> said that the question of the part-heard matters didn't come up — but the chief justice maintains that <PERSON>-Caesar told him in a telephone conversation that “she had no other outstanding matters”.
On April 27, they met again and <PERSON> informed her that the JLSC, at an emergency meeting, decided that the best thing for her to do would be to tender her resignation or have her appointment revoked.
<PERSON>-Caesar signed the resignation letter, saying she was “unable” to get legal advice before doing so. She also claimed that she was never afforded an opportunity to respond to the JLSC's allegations, and took issue with the chief justice referring to her dismissal of 16 cases on March 22 “unusual”.
Although Section 137 of the country's Constitution says that a judge can only be removed from office for an inability to perform duties or for misbehaviour, Ayers-Caesar does not consider that her actions fall under either of these categories. 957
Further, she has taken the position of her legal counsel, attorney <PERSON>, that her High Court jurisdiction would allow her to hear her outstanding cases in the Magistrates’ Court, saying, “I would expect that within the next few days, if the Judicial and Legal Services Commission agrees with this position, that I will be informed in writing of that agreement.”
Ayers-Caesar's promotion from the Magistracy to the High Court has left scores of prisoners in desperate positions, since their cases will now be further delayed.
As soon as the story broke in one of the daily newspapers, political commentator <PERSON> was all over it on Twitter. She did not buy <PERSON> excuses about omitting information pertaining to her case load, nor that someone with enough legal experience to be appointed a High Court judge was coerced into signing a resignation letter:
<PERSON> say her workload and short notice is why she couldnt remember her full caseload, oui. #MarciaCovfefe
— <PERSON> (@rhodabharath) June 11, 2017
<PERSON> say they show her the resignation letter, ask her if it ok and she said, “Whatever”. #MarciaCovfefe
— <PERSON> (@rhodabharath) June 11, 2017
<PERSON> say nobody give her permission to get legal advice. Give her permission inno? In 2017? #PermissionPlease #MarciaCovfefe
— <PERSON> (@rhodabharath) June 11, 2017
Facebook user <PERSON> also shared his observations:
I get 2 points from <PERSON> letter.
1. The Honorable Chief Justice exercised diligence in enquiring into whether the Chief Magistrate had part heard matters and;
2. It will be difficult for Her Worship to prove that her resignation was not reasonably voluntary.
‘Specific political interests'?
Meanwhile, more voices are joining the chorus for the chief justice not to resign over the matter. 600