CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5. As I said to you, dealing with technology, you always have these problems. Let's try this once again. Mister Maharaj, good morning to you. [00:00:29] Speaker B: Good morning. Satish morning to the viewers, listeners. [00:00:33] Speaker A: Great. We're hearing much, much better. So I had asked you to give us more or less a summary of what's going on. Where did this start and where is it at this point in time? [00:00:42] Speaker B: Okay. It is important for us to recognize that the issue of the judicial committee of the Privy council and having it changed to the Caribbean Court of Justice involves the administration of justice. And it means that people's rights would have to be determined finally either by the Privy council or by the Caribbean Court of Justice. And the best way to understand this is to go back in history a bit before independence, the privy council was the final court of Appeal for Trinidad and Tobago. When we got independence that continued. The then government decided to retain it and the british government continued it. When we became a republic country, there was a major national issue as to whether the people of Trinidad should continue to have the privy council or we should have a caribbean court of justice. And if you go back in history, you would see that there was a joint select committee appointed. The then prime minister was Doctor Eric Williams. And there was a lot of national discussion, debate. I participated in that. I attended the joint select committee in parliament. And what happened was that the PNM party, which was in government at the time, had all the seats in the parliament and the PNM party was divided in that some members and some of the leaders in the party wanted to abolish abuse and some did not want. And the country was divided. And Doctor Eric Williams, who was the leader of the P and M, he had all the seats in the parliament. He gave a speech and he said words to the effect that the administration of justice is not a party issue, it is a people issue and therefore have regard to what has been happening. Notwithstanding that he had the majority in the parliament, unless there was some form of recognition that the people wanted it, because the issue involved confidence in the administration of justice. And what he decided to do was to retain appeals at the Privy council, notwithstanding that he had all the majority in the parliament to abolish appeals. Since then, what happened? There were different times in history when this issue came about. When I served as a bego, the issue arose as to whether Trinidad should host the court, that is to say, to have the building and to have the institution of the Caribbean Court of Justice the UNC administration took the position that although we did not agree at the time of moving away from the privy council, we will decide to have the court, but Trinidad and Tobago, to have the court and the other government agreed to that. But if we have to abolish a peace, we would have a referendum. It was the intention of the UNC government to even pass a law to permit a referendum to occur. What happened in history, as you would have noticed, I was no longer, and that was no longer on the agenda. But the point is that there was a decision that since the issue of removing from the privy council involved public confidence in the administration of justice, you wanted a united country in that issue. If you have to remove from the privy council, and the only way to get that was to have a vote by the people of Trinidad Tobago as to whether there should be a removal at that time. We recognize that at some stage in the history of Trinidad, there would have to be a move away from the privy council. But you have to do that at a time when the country would want to do it and the people would have confidence in the administration of justice. So that has been my position. That has been the position that I, when I served as attorney general and we facilitated the establishment of the court in Trent and bingo. Now let me get it clear, because there's some misconception as to whether the appeals to the Privy council involve a lot greater cost the way the appeals are done now, local lawyers can talk, file those appeals virtually. You have local lawyers filing the appeals. As a matter of fact, local lawyers appears virtually. And what you have is that they do not have to travel to London in order to do an appeal. You could do it with a virtual hearing. And you have a situation where you do not have to retain english lawyers to do an appeal in the Privy council. And I can tell you from my experience, the cost in doing an appeal in the Privy council is not greater than the cost of doing an appeal at the Court of Appeal or the Caribbean Court of Justice. As a matter of fact, in a few days I leave to go to England, because this is an appeal I want to do personally, I want to do in person. I leave to go to England. There's a major appeal on the 30 April in which the Court of Appeal gave a judgment and we are asking the Privy Council to affirm that appeal. So I think, in summary, the issue of the removal of the privy council as the final court of Appeal involves an issue with the people, and it's an issue which affects whether the public would have confidence in the administration of justice and therefore the people should have a say. [00:06:37] Speaker A: That's a great summary for us to begin our discussion. We need to take a quick, a quick break, but when we get back, there are some more issues that we need your clarification or your explanation on for the public to have a greater understanding of what's going on. For those of you now joining us, we are speaking this morning with former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj on the issue of the Caribbean Court of Justice versus the English Privy Council. The best insight instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5. Welcome back. With us this morning, our special guest, former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, discussing CCJ versus the English Privy Council. Mister Maharaj, I'm sure that you would have been taking keen note of some of the discussions taking place in the public domain about this as you went back. We've been discussing this since Eric Williams Day. So this is a long time. This is not a matter that just popped up. And as doctor Eric Williams suggested, this should not be a political agenda, but it seems as though it's turned into a political football. The story yesterday was headlined UNC says no to CCJ and it was right after that. You calling for the referendum. Now the UNC has received its fair share of tongue lashing for its position on the Caribbean Court of justice. And we all know the issues in the public domain. But looking at it with the call for the referendum, do you think the general public who will be called upon to vote if a render of a referendum is in fact called, do you think they really understand the matters that pertain to this privy council versus Caribbean Court of Justice? Has enough been done to educate them? [00:08:28] Speaker B: I think the public, from my experience, has a good understanding of it because we were involved at different levels in dealing with that issue with the public over the years. And I think the public understand that if anyone in Senator and Tobago has any problem, they have to go to the court, whether it's a land issue, whether it's a judicial review, whether it's a constitutional motion, whether it's a matrimonial matter. And therefore courts and what happened in the courts are important to the everyday life of people. And as you would recall, people have been given greater rights because they have now the Freedom of Information act. You have a judicial review act, and therefore they have greater rights and they have greater rights to challenge decisions of public authorities. So therefore, people understand that, that the administration of justice is an everyday issue for everyone in Trinidad and Tobago and we used to have meetings, whether I was in the human rights movement or as a politician in those days with the grassroots people in the country, and I think they understand it. And if you recognize that in other countries, in the Caribbean, people understand the issues, whether you want to take away a final court and whether the country was ready with that, whether the public had confidence in it, and you would have seen in some countries they agreed, and in other countries the people voted against it. And I think since justice is an everyday issue for people, I think any government would want to have the legitimacy of the people approval to make such a decision. If you remember the history in Guyana when Forbes Burnham decided to abolish the privy council and he did not have the support of the people, what happened? A lot of people left Guyana. A lot of investments were removed from Guyana, and Guyana suffered a terrible economic problem. So if you are going to remove an institution which for centuries, people and generations have used in order to get their disputes resolved, whether civil, criminal or maximum, I think one has to be very careful that you do not use a process that the people would not have confidence in the new system, because public confidence in the administration of justice has bearing on democracy and the rule of law. And therefore, I think it is very important that we examine the issue very carefully. As a matter of fact, recently, the law association had taken a position that we should go to the public, and I was part of that decision and have debates in order to educate the public and to get the views of the public. And what happened. I think at that time, the then president of the law association was the present attorney general of Trinidad Tobago. And I had agreed to be part and parcel of that process, but it never occurred. But I think that it is recognized by many in the country that for you to make such a decision which affects the lives of people, you should really have a machinery, a process that people would have confidence in what is done. [00:11:54] Speaker A: Well, speaking of confidence, confidence is an interesting element to bring into the discussion. You're talking about confidence in the administration of justice. That is the very same argument that some legal luminaries are using now to support their call for the privy council to be retained. We have the Southern Lawyers association saying in no uncertain terms that they do not believe the Caribbean Court of Justice should be an option and that we should retain the English Privy Council. Other legal persons, varying stature, have made varying comments. Is moving to the Privy council something that should concern. Sorry, moving away from the Privy council into the Caribbean Court of Justice? One of the things that you hear is is that people are concerned about familiarity. I find that to be a weak argument when it comes to the administration of justice overall. But some are putting forward the position, well, the region is so small and somebody might know somebody and that is going to be cause a concern if judgments go before them. Is that something that people should be concerned about? Or has the Caribbean Court of Justice, which has been up and running for some time because Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana, St. Lucia, a couple others, they've signed on to the CCJ and none of those who've had matters taken to the CCJ have raised issue about the quality of judgments or the impartiality of judges at the Caribbean Court of Justice. Is that a justified argument being put forward that somehow or the other the judgments of the CCJ we really can't trust, or we don't think they're going to be as good as the privy council? [00:13:28] Speaker B: I don't think. I don't think the issue has anything to do at this stage. I don't think the issue has anything to do with whether you could trust the CCJ or not, because I think it is a matter for the public. And I think if you go to the public, you would get the perception that some would have confidence and some would not have confidence. And therefore, that is a strong argument for anyone in government or any public official to consider that. Do we want to have a situation where we abolish an institution and you have half the country, or let's say quarter of the country believing that they do not have confidence in this new institution? So therefore, I think that the only way to resolve that issue, as what Doctor Eric Williams said, and is a person that I had a hell of a lot of respect for at the time when I was a young man growing up in Trinidad and Tobago. And he came out and he made a speech and it may be important for the country to go back and look at that speech. He said that Trinidad Tobago is a small society. People must have confidence in the administration of justice. And where you have a divided country, a divided people. These are not the exact words, but these are the words that what effect, where you have a divided people, you cannot go ahead and remove that institution. And he took the position that although he had all the seats in the parliament and he could have abolished it and his party was against it, he took the position that he's standing up with. He's standing up with the people and he's keeping it. So I think the issue really is whether if you remove this without a proper process, which will generate public confidence. Do you risk that people not having confidence in the administration of justice? And what could be the adverse effects of that on the political, social and cultural life of Trinidad and Tobago? [00:15:31] Speaker A: Well, I don't know if the discussions that we're having now all going well for encouraging the public to think about some of the major issues that they should be thinking about. Because the story yesterday that comes from the UNC's press conference, I'm reading from the story here. According to opposition Senator Wade Mark, the UNC still believes the CCJ is open to political influence. Do you agree or disagree? [00:16:00] Speaker B: Well, I don't agree. I don't agree with that. As a matter of fact, I have appeared before the CCJ. I have appeared before the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago. And lawyers, when they are unhappy with a decision and they advise their clients that they are unhappy, they use the appeal process. So I do not agree that a reason is that a reason is that individual or party doesn't have confidence. But it is quite clear that there is a situation in the country. If you take a poll, some people would say they do not have confidence and some people would say they have confidence. And this is not a matter as to whether the UNC has confidence or the PNM has confidence. This is a matter whether the people have confidence in the system or whether you would want to respect the views of the people in making a decision. [00:16:55] Speaker A: Well, unfortunately, and this is my opinion, unfortunately, I'm of the opinion that far too many of our citizens can't make these decisions on their own and are easily swayed by the decisions of whichever political party or entity that they subscribe to. And that has covered the discussion. We see where the discussion is going now. I mean, the opposition leaders reported as making comments about the ethnic composition of the CCG as one of the concerns as to whether or not that is a justified or valid discussion to have. The jury's out on that one. But tell us, in your opinion, the pros and cons of both situations of keeping the privy council and going to the Caribbean Court of Justice. [00:17:45] Speaker B: Well, as far as I'm concerned, I take the position what Doctor Eric Williams took and the role of an institution which can impact whether the public would have confidence in the administration of justice. You have to utilize a process in which the people would have a say. And the only kind of process that you can use is the process of a referendum. And I do not see any objection for any right thinking politician or individual or group on not having and not giving an opportunity to the people of Trinidad in making a decision whether they vote yes or no. In England, for example, recently, when they had to make an important decision about Brexit, the country went and had a referendum and give the people an opportunity to have a chance to have a vote. In some of the caribbean countries they did that. And I do not want to go into the issue as to individual cases and whether the court was right or the court was wrong. I think that is a wrong yardstick to be used. I think the right yardstick to be used is are we going to make a decision which would generate public confidence in the administration of justice or not? And it would seem to me, as Doctor Eric Williams thought, and several other people and other countries thought, the best way to do that when you have an issue of public confidence in the administration of justice is to go to the public and have a referendum and give the people a right to have a say no. [00:19:27] Speaker A: Well, we're not even sure that this matter is going to come up for official discussion anytime soon. Because the leader of government business, that's Camille Robinson Regis, has said that they have no intention at this point. And they don't have have on the agenda at this point in time any discussions about making the caribbean court of justice this country's final court of appeal. We are not even sure that if this. We're having the discussion because of what the attorney general had to say, because of Michael Delabastee in his passing and his suggestion that this would be a fitting tribute for all we know. Because you started off by reminding us that this discussion started under Eric Williams as decades ago we're talking about, and decades later we still talking. [00:20:12] Speaker B: You make me feel very old. [00:20:15] Speaker A: It's to your credit. [00:20:18] Speaker B: I don't think I'm so old. [00:20:19] Speaker A: No, but it's not about. It's not about age. This is about wisdom. And you are full of it, that's for sure. You've been able to live the process. You've been able to witness firsthand all of the changes that have happened or have not happened over all the while that we've been discussing this thing. And Camille Robinson Regis has given us a clearer indication that we're here now. They may be thinking about this at this point in time. So why are we having this discussion? But you've outlined why we should have it and the public's confidence. [00:20:46] Speaker B: And definitely I even remember when I went to the joint select committee as a young lawyer, Mister Prevat, who was the leader of the PNM in the parliament, and he was very adamant that Trinidad and Tobago had to move away. And the PNM had generated a lot of support among the party. But there was a section of the party that did not want to abolish appeals. And doctor Eric Williams came out and he made a hell of a speech and he stood with the people. At that time. They didn't have a referendum, but what they had. They sort of gauged what the public was thinking at the time. [00:21:29] Speaker A: Yeah, well, Mister Maharaj, I think we've discussed a lot about the CCJ. But there's something that I want to get your opinion on before. Before we end our discussion here this morning. You are considered one of, if not the expert on constitutional matters in our country. You are very well respected when it comes to constitutionality and some of the issues and all that's going on right now. This country is engaged in yet another round of consultations on possible constitutional reform. I think this is the fifth one that we are having. We had the hewitting law and all these other individuals, Sir Ellis Clarke. And we could go down the road remembering every single last one of them. We're engaged in the process once again. So it would be remiss of me not to get your opinion on this issue of constitutional reform. As somebody who is as versed in our constitution. Do you think our constitution needs to be reformed? And if so, why? [00:22:30] Speaker B: Well, the Hugh Wooding report on the constitution. There was a report by Sir Hugh Wooding, former chief justice. And that committee made certain recommendations. I am of the view that there should be constitutional reform. And what has happened is that there are many reports and government either accepted some or rejected all of the recommendations. And you have a new committee. I should let you know that they contacted me and I plan when I come back from London that I would have a meeting with them and give them my thoughts. Areas which as an attorney general I had in mind. And if I had remained attorney general, I think we would have had some changes in addition to what we did at the time. I was of the firm view that we should have proportional representation in Trinidad. I was also of the firm view that we should have a law to have the right to recall our government. And I was of the firm view that we should have a system of referendum in which the people would have say on issues and there would be a machinery for that. And there are many other areas of reform. As a matter of fact, I passed. I got the parliament to pass several laws which have not been even proclaimed as yet in which there would have been major reforms. Of the landlords of Tobago. And which people would have to pay less money to get their land disputes resolved. And there are many other things. But I think there is need for reform. And I am hoping that whatever report is sent to the government this time that there is a decision taken for the government to tell the public what reforms they are going to do. And not just put it like previous governments have done. Just put it on the back burner and nothing has happened. I think we should still look at what the Hugh wording committee said on constitutional reform. [00:24:42] Speaker A: You spoke to us about one or two. A couple of the things that you would have liked to have seen when it comes to your stewardship and when you were there as attorney general. But I'm sure that over the years you would have been looking on at where we've been going as a country. And some of the things that we're addressing. Some of the things that we should be addressing and not paying attention to. Had you continued as attorney general and had you occupied that office for a much longer period. What are some of the things that you would have wanted to see come to fruition? [00:25:19] Speaker B: Well, one of the things that I would have certainly tried to do is to take steps with the government in order to ensure that the crime situation in Trinidad and Tobago was brought under control. And as you remember when in 1995 when I became the attorney general, Trindan Tobago was regarded as the Wild west. And I decided to work with the then minister of national security and the then prime minister, Mister Pandey. And we had. And we worked out a plan. And if I may say so, that plan seemed to have had result. And we were able to put in machinery. Not necessarily passing a lot of laws. We passed some laws. Some laws for example to go after the criminals to get their monies. They profited from crime. But we did make some success and brought the crime under control. And I think that there is a need to overhaul the investigative machinery, the police. And to have major reforms in the police service. It need bold action. But that is something that I would have. If I were in the journal during the period and had remained. That is something that I would have advised the government that had to be done. And that is certainly one of the major aspects of life in now that I think is affecting every area of life in Sudan. Tobago. And I think that is one of the most important things that I would have done. You would recall that. Sorry. You would recall that I actually did laws like the freedom of information, the Judicial Review act and equal opportunity and etcetera. And there are many laws that I would have wanted to implement that I already passed. For example, the landlord of Trinidad. Certainly I would have felt compelled to get the government that I was serving to have the right of coal and to have proportional representation as a replacement for the electoral system in Trinidad Tobago. [00:27:45] Speaker A: It would have been futuristic for some of those things have been implemented at the time that you're talking about because that is the way of life under the bridge now. But the idea is you're still here and you're making a lot of worthwhile contributions. [00:28:09] Speaker B: After you. [00:28:10] Speaker A: I've been trying to get you in the program for a long period of time. There are many things that I think the public needs to hear your opinion on simply because of the wealth of experience that you have. When you come back from London and after your interactions with this latest round of consultations on constitutional reform, I'd like to have you back on the program. There are other things that we probably need to discuss as well. So thank you so much for being with us here this morning. Thank you very much. [00:28:31] Speaker B: Thank you. And all the best. [00:28:32] Speaker A: And that, of course, ladies and gentlemen, how we end our interview here this morning.