In a stunning development just after 1pm, the prosecution has dropped charges against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma, who was charged with attempting to pervert the course of public justice.
As Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls entered the witness box, the lead prosecutor Gilbert Peterson, SC told the court that Sherman McNicolls, the chief witness against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma, was no longer willing to give evidence in the criminal proceedings against Chief Justice Sharma. The prosecution subsequently discontinued proceedings against the Chief Justice.
Senior Magistrate Lianne Lee Kim then told the Chief Justice that the prosecution was not offering any evidence in this matter and that he is discharged.
Lead defense attorney, Pamela Elder described the situation as outrageous and a mockery of the justice system – that one can make an accusation against another and refuse to testify when the time comes for the accuser to face cross-examination.
It is alleged that the CJ attempted to sway the Chief Magistrate Sherman McNichols’ decision in the trial of former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday. Basdeo Panday was subsequently convicted for failing to disclose a London bank account under the rules of the Integrity Act. He has since appealed the conviction and is out on bail.
No reason was given for the decision to terminate the proceedings against Chief Justice Sharma except that it was made after discussions were held with the witness — Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls. State prosecutor Gilbert Patterson indicated that reasons would be given in writing at a later date.
Sharma freed of charges
Battle not yet over -CJ
Prosecutors, in a startling move yesterday, dropped the criminal charge against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma, abruptly ending the historic prosecution.
PM GETS HIS WAY
State drops the criminal charge against CJ; impeachment coming
State vs Sharma
ATTORNEY GENERAL John Jeremie says the State’s dropping of the case against embattled Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma is a clear indication that the time has come when one set of proceedings will soon take precedence over another.
Attorneys: Political meddling
THE SUDDEN end to the criminal charge against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma yesterday sent shockwaves throughout the legal profession, with many senior attorneys suggesting that the decision was politically influenced.
McNicolls reluctant to testify
THE DECISION to stop the criminal case against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma was based on the reluctance of the main witness, Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls, to give further evidence.
AG on CJ issue: Not my call
Attorney General John Jeremie has denied he is involved in an attempt to have Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma removed from office, stressing yesterday that the Attorney General makes no decision as to whom to prosecute.
Why was CJ charged at all?
Congress of the People (COP) leader Winston Dookeran is calling on Prime Minister Patrick Manning to tell the nation why Chief Justice (CJ) Satnarine Sharma was charged in the first place…
Kamla: Charge Chief Magistrate
Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls should be charged for failing to give evidence in the matter involving Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma, Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar says…
AG: Case dropped for impeachment
ATTORNEY GENERAL John Jeremie explaining why the State suddenly dropped its criminal proceeding yesterday against Chief Justice Sat Sharma at the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court recalled that the Privy Council had said it would be oppressive to have two proceedings in progress on the same matter.
State: We are not proceeding
CHIEF MAGISTRATE Sherman McNicolls walked through the corridor of the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court, opened the door to the packed Fourth Court and entered the witness stand. But before he could even take the oath, State prosecutor Gilbert Peterson SC rose to his feet and with just three short sentences brought to an end the criminal prosecution against the man who holds the highest judicial office in this country.
McNicolls should step down
THE Criminal Bar Association has called for the immediate reinstatement of Chief Justice Sat Sharma and the resignation of Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls in the aftermath of the State dropping its case against Sharma in the Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court yesterday. Former Attorney-General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC, former deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Rangee Dolsingh and attorney Gillian Lucky yesterday joined the association in expressing concern about what this development could mean for the administration of justice. In a statement issued yesterday afternoon, Criminal Bar Association vice-president Nizam Mohammed said McNicolls should resign on the basis of what happened in court yesterday. “His refusal to face the test of cross-examination in a court of law makes his own position as a judicial officer untenable.”
Mc Nicolls breaks his silence
I doubt anyone is attempting to bully Mr. Mc Nicolls. People are calling for his resignation following the bad example he set by not testifying in court as any witness should do when called upon to do so. This is especially grave seeing that the entire case against the Chief Justice rests on the charges Mc Nicolls made.
Mc Nicolls further said:
http://www.guardian.co.tt/archives/2007-03-07/news12.html
INSIDE INFORMATION
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,53383.html
Wrong way to go
Why McNicolls refused to testify in Sharma case
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161112993
Deputy DPP takes issue with AG’s position in CJ’s matter
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken issue with the position of the Attorney General, John Jeremie, shared by Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls – that the Privy Council stated it would have been oppressive to have two simultaneous proceedings against the Chief Justice on the same matter.
DROP SHARMA CASE
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was being pressured by the Government to drop the criminal charge against Chief Justice Sat Sharma, long before the case collapsed on Monday, sources in the DPP’s department said yesterday.
The Office of the DPP, sources added, resisted the requests because, before Monday – when the Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls refused to give evidence, there was no legal basis for discontinuing the matter.
Manning awaits Mc Nicolls’ decision
Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls already stated that he wanted to give evidence at an impeachment tribunal concerning Chief Magistrate Satnarine Sharma. Prime Minister Patrick Manning pretty well knows this.
http://www.guardian.co.tt/archives/2007-03-08/news17.html
Mc Nicolls’ move casts doubt on CJ impeachment
AS he continues to resist manoeuvres by the executive to have him impeached, Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma has cast doubt on if he should be impeached having regard to the move of his main accuser–Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls–in the latest twist to a worsening controversy.
PNM/UNC clash over Mc Nicolls
Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls’ refusal to submit to cross examination in the criminal proceedings against the Chief Justice has brought the administration of justice system in T&T into disrepute, UNC MP Subhas Panday contended yesterday.
No need to stay action against Sharma–Deputy DPP
A TOUGH-talking deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Carla Brown-Antoine said she saw no valid ground to abandon the criminal prosecution against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma, although her main witness–Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls–refused to testify at the historic inquiry.
Stop criminal matter against CJ –Mc Nicolls
Letter of Chief Magistrate to DPP on February 13.
Deputy DPP stands by decision
CLEAR differences of opinion between Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls and Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Carla Brown-Antoine have been revealed in correspondence made public yesterday.
Magistrate could face charge
CHIEF MAGISTRATE Sherman McNicolls could find himself facing a disciplinary charge of misconduct because of his failure to give further testimony against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma, a former member of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission said yesterday.
Sharma’s lawyers ask for more time
LAWYERS for Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma yesterday wrote to Prime Minister Patrick Manning, seeking more time to respond to allegations of misconduct made by Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls.
UNC demands inquiry into CJ issue
The United National Congress has called for the immediate launch of a “full public inquiry” into the prosecution debacle which led to criminal charges against Chief Justice (CJ) Sat Sharma being abruptly dropped on Monday after the State’s witness, Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls refused to be cross-examined.
Lawyers: Separation of powers violated
THE CRIMINAL case against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma was swept away from under the feet of the Director of Deputy Prosecutions (DPP)’s Office by the Government because of a desire to prevent witnesses having to testify in open court, a reliable legal source disclosed yesterday.
Mc Nicolls willing to testify says Manning
Prime Minister Patrick Manning says he has received a reply from Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls, indicating that he is prepared to give evidence before any tribunal under Section 137 of the Constitution.
UNC calls for Mc Nicolls head
THE Opposition UNC is preparing and filing a motion of censure in Parliament against Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls, to have him removed from office.
CJ impasse a novel shock
The impasse involving Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma is being described as a “shock which no commonwealth territory has had to endure.”
Who is in charge here. CAN A CHIEF MAGISTRARE BE THAT ARROGANT?
How can one person be so arrogant. This is the same magistrate who is sending people back too the USA to face all kind of charges, do hope when other people come in front of this same magistrate he treat them with the same matter that he were treated.
Despite the fact that the state has dropped the charges against Mr.Justice Sharma, concerned citizens should reflect on the behaviour of the CJ last July, when the attempt to arrest him was made. His conduct at that time, up to and including his appeal to the Privy Council spoke to me of his unsuitability for high office. If he knew there was no case to answer, and his trained mind oughtto have known this, why not let the process unfold as it should? Instead, judges made decisions on his behalf, by phone calls, these judges being people who must call him boss. The young woman in that case also seemed to have suffered a lapse in judgment and succummed to pressure.Who else could have had a warrant squashed by phone? That is interfering in the judicial-legal process. It is not a method available to the man in the street, and as such, it was a misuse of his official powers. It was only when the Privy Council ruled against him that he agreed to surrender. Now, unless Sir Timothy Cassels, the DPP and the AG are working in cahoots against him, which still has to be proved, the Chief Justice behaved in a manner likely to bring his high office into disrepute.
One may well argue that the Chief Magistrate, by his refusal to testify after Ms. Pamela Elder demanded, partially through screaming headlines in one daily paper, that he be produced “right now”; has also behaved in a manner likely to bring his office into disrepute. Ms. Elder must have been aware that the Chief MAgistrate was involved in other court matters.This was brilliant grandstanding, but did we as a people gain from it? none of this, in any way excuses the prior behaviour of Mr. Justice Sharma.
Various people with political agendas are calling for his “immediate reinstatement”. This is such rubbish that it amazes me that intelligent people will attach their names to such a call, even if they believe it will get them some votes.
There were concerns raised by the DPP, the AG and Sir Timothy Cassells that still need to be addressed. If it is a matter of his pension, I have not heard that he was suspended without pay. While it is a fact that other Chief Justices have been involved in internal squabblings made public before, it is safe for this lay person to say that no other CJ has dragged the system into the mess it is in now.
His suitability for that high office, due to all this, remains a question that the state, in the person of the President, must address, after all outstanding questions have been laid to rest.
Politicians who advocate a separation of powers- Judiciary, Legislative and Executive are respectfully invited to keep their mouths shut. There is no political gain to be had by disgracing the country further.
I am of course, not a lawyer, just a plain old lay person, so maybe I am asking too much of those mouthing off in the papers daily.
I am not on the side of any of the players in this issue. I feel the CJ was right to use all legal measures to prevent the government from removing him from office if he is under the impression it was being maliciously done. I have experienced the corruption and manipulations of members of the PNM government. If the CJ felt he was being persecuted he was right to use every legal means available in his own defense.
I also feel the government went about this too heavy-handed and arrogant, that is usually the case for any government in power. They all feel they must get their way and want total control of all arms of the state.
Linda Edwards: “Ms. Elder must have been aware that the Chief Magistrate was involved in other court matters. This was brilliant grandstanding, but did we as a people gain from it? none of this, in any way excuses the prior behaviour of Mr. Justice Sharma.”
Ms. Elder could have only requested and insisted that the Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls be called as the first witness. She had no authority to determine the order by which the prosecution witnesses were actually called. The prosecution acceded to her request and may have had a reason for so doing. The prosecution may have been aware of what the Chief Magistrate was deliberating about and may have felt not to call any other witnesses who they may wish to later call to give evidence at a tribunal.
Linda Edwards: “Various people with political agendas are calling for his “immediate reinstatement”. This is such rubbish that it amazes me that intelligent people will attach their names to such a call, even if they believe it will get them some votes.”
He should be reinstated if the state has no legal grounds barring him from office. It should be noted, I am not supporting any of the political parties.
Linda Edwards: “His suitability for that high office, due to all this, remains a question that the state, in the person of the President, must address, after all outstanding questions have been laid to rest.”
The suitability or unsuitability for CJ Sharma to hold that office cannot rest on allegations that are yet to be proven. Anyone can make an allegation and it could be true or false.
Linda Edwards: “Politicians who advocate a separation of powers- Judiciary, Legislative and Executive are respectfully invited to keep their mouths shut.”
That is a strange statement. So if I value the separation of powers I should not comment on the issues? That is not what separation of powers is about. I dare add that the entire effort to remove CJ Sharma from office reeks of collusion between several arms of the state. The CJ could very well be guilty as charged, but by the conduct of all parties in this matter, including that of the Prime Minister, I will never know for sure.
Ah, Heru. You said you are not on any side, as a politician, you are on a side. There are no neutral politicians. Informed and misinformed members of the public should continue to comment on this issue of major national significance. It is those with obvious political agendas who are courteously invited to shut up. Note the oxymoron intended in courteous shut up.
Now your selective quotations leave out some significant issues.The use of a phone “Cease and desist’ order to the entire police force seems outside the vast powers of the CJ’s office.
Should a person of tremendous legal power, use the power of his office to create dubious legal precedents of which he is the only beneficiary? Your “conspiracy” mode of thinking, and your comments about politicians and the PNM open the question of impartiality of your views.
The only standard by which I ask that you judge that much maligned, much praised PNM is this: Implications of corruption are brought to the Prime Minister by a minor political office holder. The prime minister says if you have evidence go to the police. Mr Sumairsingh ends up politically assassinated. A minor political office holder goes to the prime minister with information about corruption within the system, the Prime Minister turns it over to the police. Their investigations lead to the arrest and resignations of two ministers, until they are cleared or convicted.
Manning’s action here is the gold standard of appropriate conduct by a head of government. To assume then, that he was acting with spite when the CJ matter came up, is to assume that because the CJ was of a different ethnic group etc… (The same old khaki pants). But Mr. Franklyn Khan was of a different ethnic group too. And so too, is Sir Timothy Cassells whose statement about the conversation on the plane to TnT remains unchallenged. He belongs to that same distingusihed body of jurists, the British legal system, to whom we send appeals of convenience.
If we were a terrorist state, where people disappear in the night and are “rendered” to other places for torture and possibly death, there may have been some excuse for the attempts made by the CJ to twist the system to serve his own personal gain.
The fact that he could do this, and get away with it, and have alegedly responsible people call for his re-instatement says we are perhaps the freest democracy in the world. You must recall however, that these same people are the ones who say that the London Bank Account was a tempest in a teacup, the Airport Probe into corruption is a witch hunt and that Panday should not have been removed from his parliamentary position.Arguments of convenience that are politically motivated. The reinstatement pleas for the CJ fall into that category also.
Those tainted political hacks are the ones invited to shut up on the issue. Of course you are not one of them, are you.
Who are you?
Aspects of your response are reminiscent of how you typically respond to those who disagree with you. I will simply respond to what I think requires a response and leave the rest.
Linda Edwards: “Ah, Heru. You said you are not on any side, as a politician, you are on a side. There are no neutral politicians. Informed and misinformed members of the public should continue to comment on this issue of major national significance. It is those with obvious political agendas who are courteously invited to shut up.”
I said, “I am not on the side of any of the players in this issue.”
This issue has several players: Chief Justice Sharma, Prime Minister Patrick Manning, Basdeo Panday, PNM supporters, UNC supporters and several others not mentioned. I do not believe that any of these players are honest and would level with the population.
Linda Edwards: “…as a politician, you are on a side.”
Yes, I am a politician somewhat as my views are destined to influence policies and people, and that can affect how people vote. But I am no parliamentarian, member of any political party or supporter of any political hegemony.
I did not clearly pick up the category of people you were calling on to shut up, but I still disagree with you. I do feel that even those with political agendas, inclusive of those in your category, have a right to speak on this and any issue.
Linda Edwards: “Should a person of tremendous legal power, use the power of his office to create dubious legal precedents of which he is the only beneficiary?”
To you his arguments are dubious and to others he was using means available to him to defend himself from what he may have felt was persecution. I did not see the need to respond to that part of your comment as that argument can swing in favour of any side depending on which side one supports on this issue, and in my view both sides could be right and wrong in part. Legal precedents are set from those who advance certain positions and challenge the status quo.
Linda Edwards: “Your ‘conspiracy’ mode of thinking, and your comments about politicians and the PNM open the question of impartiality of your views.”
I don’t know what you are trying to say here about my “‘conspiracy’ mode of thinking”. And certainly my experiences with politicians from all these parties have influenced how I view them. I do not believe that any of them will do the right thing for the right reasons. Instead of trying to impute that my comments may not be impartial, you can simply state what is wrong with my comments.
The rest of your response is merely spewing some common information mixed with speculations and unproven allegations for propaganda purposes.
I will gauge these politicians and issues from what I know of them and certainly not through the heavy tint of political partisan biases which usually clouds reality.
Sharma returns to office on Monday
HIS anguish is over – Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma returns Monday to once more lead the judiciary…
Sharma Is Back To Work
Chief Justice vows to restore public confidence
President to revoke appointment Monday
PRESIDENT George Maxwell Richards, flexing his constitutional muscle, intends to revoke the appointment of acting Chief Justice Roger Hamel-Smith on Monday
UNC: State must pay CJ’s legal costs
The Opposition UNC has called on the State to pay Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma “the millions of dollars in legal costs” which he incurred in defending himself against recent allegations…
Sobion calls for stability in judiciary
Former Attorney General Keith Sobion says President George Maxwell Richards still has the option of setting up a tribunal for impeachment under Section 137 of the Constitution…
Dookeran wants public inquiry
Congress of the People (COP) leader Winston Dookeran has called on President George Maxwell Richards to implement a full, independent, public inquiry into the entire scenario concerning the Chief Magistrate, the executive and office of the Attorney General…
Nizam advises against impeachment
Former Speaker Nizam Mohammed has said Prime Minister Patrick Manning may engage in a “witch-hunt” if he decides to go ahead with impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma…
Govt clams up on CJ impeachment
Government yesterday remained mum on whether Prime Minister Patrick Manning will continue investigating possible impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma…
Bas gets a chance again Monday
Members of Parliament (MPs) will attend a special sitting in the Lower House on Monday to pass a resolution allowing the Speaker to seek High Court opinion on UNC leader Basdeo Panday’s move to reclaim his former seat…
Standing Orders can settle Panday issue -former Speaker
Former Speaker Nizam Mohammed says it is wrong to declare the seat of UNC interim political leader Basdeo Panday vacant…
Bas: No stopping me
Nizam: Speaker acted in error