We Need Light, Not Just Heat

PM - CJ - Should the PM Initiate Impeachment of Chief Justice?

We Need Light, Not Just Heat
This is my second piece on the current toing and froing about the PM invoking s.137(3) of the Constitution by recommending to the President that a tribunal be set up to investigate charges against the Chief Justice and recommend his removal from office or otherwise.
In my first piece, I raised several questions concerning the Prime Minister’s role in the disciplinary process set out in section 137(3) and the basis for a decision by the PM to request the President to set up the tribunal.
Among my questions were:

• What “enquiry” is the PM required to make before making a similar request (for a tribunal) re. the CJ?
• Did the PM, in this present case, make any enquiry of the CJ or anyone else? Or, did he just decide, without any enquiry at all, that he would do nothing?
• Is it proper for the PM to request or not request a tribunal of the President, without himself doing some investigation of the matter to be able to satisfy the President that there is some preliminary level of proof of the CJ’s inability to perform his functions for reasons set out in s. 137(1)?
• Did the PM make any enquiry of the CJ or anyone else regarding these serious allegations?

As it turns out, I am not the first to ask these questions.
I did say that we had gone this way before with the Sharma impeachment (removal by s. 137 process) episode 14 years or so ago.
The PM’s Role Then and Now
It is good that so many commentaries were made on the “Sharma Affair” as it became known.
Dr. Selwyn Cudjoe, in a lecture at POS City Hall on February 17, 2005, titled “No Man Is Above the Law Let Justice Prevail” among other things had this to say:
“In his address to the Nation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Manning) made it very clear:
"According to the constitutional process, the Prime Minister must decide whether the question of removing the Chief Justice ought to be investigated.
Naturally, such a decision should be made only;
a) After a thorough examination of the issues is undertaken and
b)    If there is a serious enough case to answer.”
Cudjoe also said, “The Constitution allows the Prime Minister to collect the information and determine whether it should be sent on to the President.”
From these quotes, either PM Manning or Dr. Cudjoe or both answer my questions with a YES.
Yes, the PM must ‘thoroughly examine the issues” and must “decide if there is a serious enough case”.
Well, Mr. Manning went to the point in his examination, enquiry of writing to the CJ Sharma and asking him questions.
The PM was criticized by some for writing the CJ. But that was the position of commentators only.
What is the PM doing now in the present CJ Affair?
Here’s what PM Rowley told Parliament last Friday, “The only assurance I can give is that as Prime Minister, I’ll ensure that the responsibility of the Office of Prime Minister operates under the provisions of the Constitution and not calls being made by people who don’t understand the role of the Prime Minister and the provisions of the Constitution.”.
And, exactly what does that mean, Mr. PM?
Issues of s. 137 Itself
In my first piece, I raised questions of the inadequacies of s.137 of the Constitution itself.
I suggested that it did not sufficiently clarify the duty of investigation on the part of the PM or the President in the recommendations or decisions they each had to make.
In the Sharma Affair, the questions about s.137 went even further.
There are references even in a foreign journal published by Monroe College under the title - ATTACKS ON JUSTICE – TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO.
I quote from that article now:
“The conflict between the Prime Minister and CJ Sharma has prompted discussion on whether the Constitution ought to be amended to preclude Prime Ministers from initiating such actions in the future. Former President Sir Ellis Clarke has argued that it should be for the President, and not the Prime Minister, to decide whether to initiate impeachment proceedings as it was the former who appointed the CJ. In February 2005, ex-President Clarke and UNC leader Basdeo Panday called for an amendment to article 137 of the Constitution to be introduced to this effect as they consider the present system to be unfair.”.
Both one of the authors of the Constitution, Sir Ellis Clarke and a former PM advocated for the PM to have NO ROLE in s.137 at all to make the process fairer.
I continue to argue that s. 137 needs to be examined and any ambiguity or shortcoming, including the point made by these 2 former leaders of our country, must be the subject of Constitutional amendment.
If all we do is decide if to remove the CJ or not, and s.137 is left as it is, as a nation; for the sake of improving our governance arrangements we would have achieved very little or possibly nothing of real value for the future of our country.
Our Constitution would remain untouched. Our quality of Governance will remain in the 1960’s.
The “Archie Affair” will go down in history as a distant memory just like the “Sharma Affair” before it.
A lot of Heat, but NO Light!