KHAN VS CHIEF JUSTICE

[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5. [00:00:08] Speaker B: As I get on the line, Ms. Senior Counsel Israel Khan, the President of the CBA, otherwise known as the Criminal Bar Association. Good morning Mr. Khan. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. [00:00:21] Speaker A: Good morning to you and all the listeners and good morning to Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean. [00:00:26] Speaker B: Mr. Khan, on page nine of our Guardian of Democracy this morning you have occupied some real estate on that page there where Khan destroy CJ's portrait. Again calls for probe in going through this story. One would have thought in the past that you wanted his removal from office. Coming off the conversation or the judgment from the Privy Council in London, can you share some insight on this? Remind our listening audience why you are so peeved at the moment as it relates to the, to the Chief justice and what took place with the. The judge. [00:01:00] Speaker A: Well, let me back up a bit. It goes, it goes beyond that. You recall that in 2017 there was an allegation against the Chief justice that he was using his position to get national houses, that is for two personal friends who he had an intimate relationship with. And these people were collecting money, they were convicted felons from citizens in order to get the houses. And they were on a serious allegation. And the Law association said that they should trigger 137 investigation to find out whether the allegations were true. And if he bought the office of the Chief justice in the tribute and they got two distinguished jurists from the Caribbean, two former Attorney General who said that the evidence presented to him by the Law association was sufficient to trigger this investigation. Now, under our constitution, only the Prime Minister of the country could trigger that investigation. And former Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley refused to trigger that investigation. And the reason for it now exposed facto not triggering that investigation. He wanted control of the Chief justice and that remained there. And now we see that at that time he had appointed Caesars to be a High Court judge knowing that she had outstanding matters, very serious outstanding matters. One of the matters whereby I on behalf of the DPP was prosecution Abu Bakr, she did not complete that matter and he didn't complete due diligence to see how many matters she had outstanding. But she had more than 21 matters of starting, she had about 52. And then the prisoners started to riot in the various cell and courts, that is the people who charged for murders. They were inside there for seven and eight years. And that mattered to start all over again. What the Chief justice did he panic in that he realized that this will impact upon. At that time Raleigh did not decide as yet whether she would trigger 137. And he decided he hatch a plan on his own. And he influenced the members of the Judicial Legal Service Commission to indicate to her that they will trigger 137 against her unless she resigned at his office. Prepare letter of a force a tricker in order to sign that he told the president of the country that she resigned voluntarily. Now, three judges of the our court, our local court of appeal found that he coerced her. He pressured her, he tricked her. He unlawfully caused her fixer's signature document. That is three local judges. And let. I want to make it quite clear. The three judges who did this it has nothing to do with tribe and race. One of the judges was what we call a local white. Then another was bureau African descent and so on Indian descent. Because everything seemed to be running on race in this country. So what they did is the appeal. That is the Chief justice appeal to the privilege of council and five law lords. Well, we don't. All the law lords are former slave masters and colonizers. The white people decided that look, this Chief justice committed unlawful act. As a matter of fact they found out the fact that it was misbehaving public office. Now misbehavior public office the country knows by now is a criminal offense. That is why they they have arrested the Commissioner Police on an allegation of misfavor of public office. So why the Chief justice remaining there untouched? So I decided now to call again. I said that the criminal man, the Criminal Bar association decided to call again. We want an independent investigation in order to find out whether what the Privy Council is saying or whether all local courts are true. That the accident illegally enforcer etc. Etc. And if they find that as a fact beyond all reasonable doubt, they will recommend that he be removed from office. That is the gist of the whole story. I took his photo down because I had his photo down. In spite I wanted to offer the rest of Chief justice with my Lord Chambers because he remains the Chief justice in spite of that. That is only the bar the Criminal Bar association view. But when the Privy Council and the local court appeal founded the fact that he had Ms. Wavy had public office. And what is good for the Commissioner Police is also good for him. I decided that his photo belongs in the dustbin and he's a disgrace to this country. So let me see what the government of the day is going to do. And the present Prime Minister who was imposed on the country. And that is the right. They can do what they want. Who has the majority in parliament could do what they want. How to get a prime minister. But he has a sacred duty to tell the people of this country whether he's going to trigger 137 or not before he accept the vote for him. And he's not doing that. So this is the whole gist of everything. [00:06:56] Speaker B: Now let me back it up a little bit. Thank you very much for making. I didn't want to interrupt you because you know, sometimes when you're doing an interview, the the host will try to ask you a question in between. Now, you went through the. The since 2017, you gave. You told the story to the best of your knowledge and what would have been in the public domain and what you understand it to be. Now, is it customary that a magistrate be appointed as a judge? Let's walk me through that process. Because here it is a judge, a magistrate have 51 to 52 cases pending before them before her. And she was removed from the magistrate and taken up to the become a high court judge. What is the process for a magistrate to be appointed as a judge? [00:07:44] Speaker A: Not only a magistrate. She was a chief magistrate. [00:07:47] Speaker B: The chief. That's correct. She was the chief magistrate. That's correct. [00:07:49] Speaker A: And what she. What she. What she did is either negligence or deliberately did not inform the Judicial Legal Service Commission that she had so many cases. So. So she is not clean. She had fall to. But the Judicial Legal Service Commission should have done due diligence and find out before not only appointment before recommending that she took an oath of office hold back that appointment until she finished her cases. But they did not do that. The country does not know that this chief man and the Chief justice are very, very close friends. Very close friends. But he decided that since she mislead him, he's saying he threw her under the bus. He decided to save himself. So the chief magistrate who was appointed a judge and sworn in is not totally clean. So as a matter of fact I said. I had said initially investigate both of them. [00:08:57] Speaker B: So what are you saying? When the appointment or the conversation surrounding this appointment because it doesn't come like a thief in the night. I would imagine that the Chief justice and the association would have would break words with the magistrate in question. Whose responsibility is it to bring to the fore the cases or the matters pending before them? And if there are matters, is it that? So let me ask you again. Is it the magistrates duty to inform the Chief justice and the panel? Listen, while disappointment I Appreciate and I'm willing to accept at this time. However, please be advised that so. So. Or is it that the Chief justice and the team supposed to. All right. So we are looking at Israel Khan, senior counsel to Marie Kim. What cases does he have? Is there anything? And look at this. Investigate these things before pointing what is the due process? [00:09:48] Speaker A: Well, when they hit the nail on the head. [00:09:51] Speaker B: There you go. [00:09:51] Speaker A: Because they would have known because the Chief magistrate is accountable to the Chief justice that coverage judiciary and all other magistrates who were appointed as a as master record or High court judge indicated that they had so many cases pending. This Chief magistrate indicated that she only had about 18 or 23. [00:10:18] Speaker B: So she mislead the. The. [00:10:20] Speaker A: The panel she mislead the allegedly justice whether it is deliberately or by negligence. Because what she was saying. She asked officer in the chief magistrate department to put all the parthood cases together but she ought to know to manage how many part cases she has. So she's at phone too. [00:10:41] Speaker B: All right. [00:10:42] Speaker A: So when. When she passed the. The. The. The examination and interview and so on and is selected to be appointed. What they should have done the Chief Justices have done is hold back her swaying as a judge until I complete your matters and after complete your matters then your appointment will take place. It's very simple. But they did not do that. So it's both of them to be blamed. So is it also said she could be investigated also? But it must give an opportunity to be heard. Why this happen? [00:11:15] Speaker B: So is it that when you get that appointment or that conversation happens that you can't? Could it. Could it be a situation where you pass your cases on to another magistrate? Because what I'm getting from you based on the story you have to see. Because that means the new magistrate will have to hear everything again. [00:11:33] Speaker A: Precisely. So what they call that in law once she takes up an appointment, she is functus officio. That means all apartheid matters come to an end. A new master. The other one to demeanor witnesses they had to have their own judgment. They cannot take the the how the. The former master who was appointed was was thinking about the witnesses etc etc. So you're right, it had to start all over again. And since it started all over again the f hit the fan again. The Chief justice didn't want this to be openly come up because the Prime Minister was deliberating whether to trigger investigation against him or to remove him. [00:12:19] Speaker B: Now based on what we are hearing, right, Candy Prime Minister. Because we understand that when it comes to the. Because the Prime Minister is saying there's nothing against the Chief Justice, Ivor Archer. He's saying that it's. It's against the judicial. The. The Judicial and Legal Services Commission, which is the jlsc. Right now he's saying I have. Right. So he's saying it's not. So is the Prime Minister wrong? Is he? If he's saying it's not against Ivor Archie. Now I am thinking that Ivar. Archie, the box stops with you. So even. [00:12:52] Speaker A: Go ahead. Yes, you know, I listen. I listen. [00:12:55] Speaker B: All right. So even if it's the jlsc, who is the head of that, not the Chief Justice. So for the Prime Minister to make a pronouncement that it's not the Chief justice, but the committee, is he correct? [00:13:09] Speaker A: Precisely. Precisely. Once again, I hit the nail on the head. The Chief justice is what they call paimas inter pares among equals. With all the members he has. He's in charge of the Judicial Legal Service Commission. He is permanent. The other members of the Judicial Legal Service Commission are temporary. What they are there for three years, but he's permanent and he has a great say over them. And a matter of fact, he is the only. And he's very efficient and very competent as an. As an attorney, he will know the law. So the box stop with him. So Raleigh, the entire Jewish Legal Service Commission is responsible, but the Chief justice is also responsible. He's head of the Judiciary. So what nonsense the Prime Minister is telling us. He thinks that the people of this country, they are foolish people. So he could tell them that. [00:14:04] Speaker B: Because when we look at it, he says there is nothing before him at this time. Now, just before we conclude our interview this morning, it would be remiss of me if I didn't ask you to delve a little deeper into section 137. What that states, what it means for the layman on the ground to understand the severity of the situation facing the country, not to mention the embarrassment of the situation facing the country. Because when you look at we already have complaints against the judiciary and the archaic and draconian time it takes to bring matters before the court and have it cleared. We are already facing situations where it appears as though when you arrest and charge me and take me to court, it's only then you're now looking for evidence to prosecute me. It appears that way. [00:14:48] Speaker A: Well, first, what I want to point out to the country at large, there are people who charge for murder and they are presumed to be innocent. And they are locked up without bail. And they are there for 10 and 15 years and they cannot get a trial. There are over 700 police killings of citizens in this country. And there are 700 pending in quest to find out whether the police unlawfully kill the citizens or they kill them in acting in self defense and using reasonable thought. And the Chief justice is in charge of setting up Coronas to hear these matters. He did absolutely nothing. Absolutely Nothing. You say 700 and then all these people locked up. Nothing, nothing is going on. So in relation to the judiciary it is in a total miss so having said that, I will explain 137 now. 137. And if there is an allegation of misconduct as the Privy Council is saying that you act unlawfully, that you commit an act of misbehavior and again misbehaving public office is a criminal offense. You cannot use your office and act illegally to get rid of somebody. And they know by now the commissioner police were in charge of issuing guns and arms and license to people. They say she ought not to do such a thing and they arrest her and charge her and they're still deciding whether to charge her. So 137 says only the Prime Minister of the country should trigger that tribunal. And he will select the members of the Prime Minister of the tribunal and advise the President for them to investigate that what it means. And, and the present Prime Minister, he has nothing before him. What is he thinking? That people are so stupid. He will have the Privy Council judgment. All lawyers have that judgment. You'll see what they. And he said that he acted in, he, he, he really had an input in 137 and he very acquainted with the 137. So why does he want to triggered. What is happening is they want achieve justice. Who they can control, they wanted can control. [00:17:07] Speaker B: Now we often hear the. We often. I don't mean to cut you Mr. Khan, but we often hear these things in politics. I mean we see it in the movies. We see it. I often tell people about it. But isn't the office of the politicians separate and apart from that of the Judicial Legal Services Commission, the Justice Department? [00:17:25] Speaker A: Well, you look like you're a trained lawyer because that is exactly what has happened. Because there's something called the doctrine of separation of power, that the people who make the laws and if you execute the laws should not control the people who interpret the laws. [00:17:42] Speaker B: Because when I look at what the Prime Minister is saying, I mean the Prime Minister is a very learned legal luminary in this country. He's a senior counsel as well. [00:17:50] Speaker A: He's now saying I support that. He's a good lawyer, very good. [00:17:54] Speaker B: And he's now saying that he would carefully consider any material which might warrant a probe and would only make a decision after seeking independent legal advice. So who is he going to go to to make this happen? [00:18:08] Speaker A: He can't go to the President, Attorney General, because she's not a practicing attorney, she's more a politician. So they will source outside lawyers inside Trinidad and outside Trinidad, the Caribbean Commonwealth. But what he must do, he must do that before the 28th of April, before he active vote for him. They want to know what kind of Prime Minister will have because he could say, look, I get legal advice and are doing nothing. And we are the same Chief justice for another six years in there making masks. [00:18:39] Speaker B: So this Chief justice, based on your respected opinion, your learned opinion, has erred tremendously in his office. And those errors are so critical and crucial. It doesn't just embarrass the country, but it also borders on criminal misconduct as well. [00:18:57] Speaker A: Yes. So what we are saying, we are not saying to fire him or we're saying to set up a tribunal to investigate whether he should be fired. Maybe they will come to the conclusion, having regard to everything, that the Chief magistrate misled him and so on and all this, that and so on. Or maybe they will even come to the conclusion on their own that the chief man should resign voluntarily and not listen to the Privy Council and in that listen to all local judges. That is their remit, this tribunal. So why you are afraid to set it up? Why? Why you don't want to set it up? [00:19:34] Speaker B: You know, in thinking about what you're saying, I think in doing something like that, it will create further embarrassment to this country. Because if you are the head of the jlsc, you are the, as you rightfully mentioned a few moments ago, he is the permanent fixture there, everyone else temporary. Right. It would seem as though he is very, very incompetent as a leader of this legal body. Given the fact that you submitted an appointment, a name for an appointment without due diligence, you can't be so friend, friend and body buddy. So what, what was the thinking that the persons, the 52 cases that the Chief magistrate was currently sitting on, that it would have just go under the table and another magistrate and these remandees wouldn't kick up a fuss? We're talking about persons in there a decade, from at least a minimum of eight years to a decade and more. [00:20:28] Speaker A: Well, if the prisoners didn't start a riot and so on, he Would have kept quiet. Just as though we kept quiet with several hundred killings by police. Quiet with people locked up for years. I defended six policemen about a year ago who were charged for murder allegedly killing three people in Moruga. And they remain policemen acting the execution due to false witnesses implicated them. And they remain locked up for 11 years before they get a trial. And they were acquitted in 30 minutes. Did you really let them go? So this is a state of affairs that it is rotten at the head and the whole body. And the judiciary is a laughing stock of people throughout the Caribbean. You see, I have nothing against this Chief justice private life, but you could recall what happened with somebody in a hotel and exposing jockey shots and all sort of a thing. And those very people you get in houses for and all these things is a scandal. And I am not saying entitled our private life, but don't commingle your private life with your public life and do things to bring office into distribute. In any other country, these Chief justice who have the modicum of of decency in him would have resigned. But he is bold faced. He's not going to resign. [00:21:54] Speaker B: So Senior Counsel Israel Khan, I will ask you directly here, under the constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, is it that the Prime Minister can, in the invocation of section 137, can the Prime Minister step in and seriously remove the Chief justice or make recommendations to Her Excellency to have this done? [00:22:11] Speaker A: No, the Prime Minister can't do that. The Prime Minister, all he can do is cause the President to set up a tribunal to investigate whether these things are true. And if it is true, it is sufficient to remove him. The Chief justice of a country must be protected. A Prime Minister can remove you, Right? [00:22:31] Speaker B: So if this, if this, if the Prime Minister advises, advise. Oh, all right. That's the next question I wanted to ask you very quickly. If he refuses to do this, what is that signaling for us? And what other redress or recourse can the country get from this? [00:22:48] Speaker A: If he refuses, absolutely nothing could be done. The only recourse they can get, if the public feels strongly enough when an election comes around, they will remove the Prime Minister. [00:22:58] Speaker B: Wow. So that's another five years by not voting to him. [00:23:02] Speaker A: And this is the stage we reach. You see, what has happened is that the Prime Minister does not appoint a Chief Justice. The Prime Minister, this country is a liberal democratic country. He doesn't have the power to appoint a Chief Justice. The person who appointed Chief justice is the President of the country. The President of the country after consultation with The Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition and our own deliberate judgment will decide who becomes Chief Justice. And the President is the one since she appoints. If there's a serious allegation against him. She is the one who should give her the power to trigger the 137. The Prime Minister is under the constitution. Eric Williams wanted that. The founding father of the nation wanted that. That he wanted control. So that is there. So nobody could do anything, absolutely nobody until they change the constitution. [00:23:58] Speaker B: I must congratulate you on your one man protest. That is you stood up for what you believe is right and honorable in Trinidad and Tobago. And I must thank you for for bringing this to the forefather this morning. Are you in for one phone call at least from one of our listeners. They are eager to speak with you. Let's use on the line. Good morning. [00:24:15] Speaker A: Morning. Mr. Khan. Yes. [00:24:18] Speaker B: Why haven't you had consultation with the head of the law association then pen a letter to the Judicial Legal and Services Commission and have an indoor meeting with them on this matter? I listen to your comments. [00:24:33] Speaker A: Yeah. What has happened? What has happened? Law association represent all the lawyers in the country and I am a member. All lawyers must be members of the association. The law system is separate and apart from the Criminal Bar Association. The law association has make a public statement indicating they ought to trigger 137 the laws of the assembly of attorneys in south have also said the same thing and the Criminal Bar association is saying the same thing and other commentaries are saying the same thing. So they have said it, but they cannot go behind close doors and discuss. They're going to have a. Have a meeting with the Attorney general or the government and so on. They will say why you all don't mind your own business. You have no right to let me decide this. You already signed up. [00:25:21] Speaker B: Right, Right. Well, one person is now messaging me and saying hey, Israel Khan for ag. So your name in the pool. Just want you to know that. [00:25:29] Speaker A: Well, no, no, David. Mr. Israel, in order to be AG of the country, what they have to be. You have to be a member of the cabinet. When you are a member of the cabinet you must have what they call collective responsibility. They might take a decision you do not like and you have. I do not subscribe to collective responsibility in this country because if a cabinet is doing something, I will say something. I myself who has said that Kamna Posse be successor is a disgrace to this country by criticizing a senior lawyer, that he's a C preplayer and so on and so on. And I Defend her any Millgate. And I am supporting her for Prime Minister in spite of what she said. [00:26:10] Speaker B: Noted. One final call here. [00:26:11] Speaker A: David. [00:26:12] Speaker B: Did Mr. Israel Khan just morning that that Camille is not a practicing lawyer. Isn't she now suing Kamala for that? Statements made on a political platform. We missed the opportunity to ask. [00:26:29] Speaker A: I am not saying in public, let us sue me. She knows she cannot sue because if that is fair comment, the fact remain that she was an attorney and she decided to be a politician. And for all these years she never paid for price, she never appeared in court. So it's not a. I am not saying she's not attorney. You know, she's not a practicing attorney. [00:26:49] Speaker B: And that is a very startling difference because you can, you can have a law degree, but if you did not take the bar and you didn't pay. Final question to you this morning. Very quickly. [00:26:58] Speaker A: She's an attorney and she could be Attorney General of the country if she needs to give the cabinet advice. All she has to do is pay a senior counsel in the country. It was a criminal matters, very complex matter. And she come to me, I will charge a reasonable fee to government and give her opinion or any other lawyer. And if she want no lawyer in Trinidad, that law is in the Caribbean. She could be Attorney General. [00:27:21] Speaker B: So okay with that. With that being said, guests walk me very quickly because this has been something that has been talked about since she has been appointed as the Attorney General of the Republic. When you become a lawyer, give me these stages. I know you have to go to the law school to get your llb, whatever you have to do your little internship. Following the internship, what happens next as a lawyer in this country? [00:27:43] Speaker A: Well, once you are admitted, if you didn't come from a background or lawyers that you associated with lawyers and you have an idea walk in a law firm or you're not a police officer, the best thing for you to do is get a seat in a lawyer's chambers which is established. And it takes about three or four years learning the art and learning the law. Or work with the director of public prosecution or somewhere where you take care for three or four, five years in order to understand the criminal justice system, the legal system and so on. You become a surgeon and study a surgeon. You just don't jump into operator room at that operator to see whether you could transplant a man heart or kidneys. [00:28:25] Speaker B: Right. [00:28:25] Speaker A: You have to learn, right. [00:28:27] Speaker B: So after that you are called to the bar. [00:28:29] Speaker A: Yes. After. No, no, no, no. You're called before. Long before that. [00:28:32] Speaker B: Right. [00:28:32] Speaker A: After, after you get your LLB at the law faculty and you go to Hewitt in law school and they admit you, you, you're called to the bar, right? Practice. All right, let me give a good indication and the country will know that there are many people who are licensed drivers in this country. Many are. 95.9% of these people got the license. They don't know how to parallel park. [00:28:57] Speaker B: Point taken. So after that, do you have to pay a fee? What is this payments to be to practice law in this country yearly, this annual fee? [00:29:07] Speaker A: No, you see, once I become a lawyer, automatically you are compelled to be a member of the law association, right? And you have to pay a fee in order for your license to practice to be renewed. [00:29:21] Speaker B: And how often is your license renewed? [00:29:23] Speaker A: Every year. [00:29:24] Speaker B: Every year. So every year you have to renew your license to practice law in this country. And it's a fee attack. [00:29:30] Speaker A: You just renew your license, that is a subscription with the law association in order to run the lawyers business in the country. [00:29:38] Speaker B: So without paying this, this lawyer's fee, this, this license fee, is it that you would not be allowed to go before a judge or a magistrate? [00:29:46] Speaker A: No. Yeah, it would not be allowed, you know, but, but, but there is more. Any, any break, any law that maintaining law, they, they will just say, all right, look, here, pay your fee. Why I pay your fee? Look, two months pass, three months pass. But therefore, two or three years, or five or six years pass, they take care of the rule and then you have to reapply again. And that would happen to Camille. [00:30:06] Speaker B: And that's what going with Camille Robinson Regis. [00:30:08] Speaker A: Yes. And after many, many lawyers who become politician, who become. So they don't practice. [00:30:16] Speaker B: Noted. [00:30:16] Speaker A: There was no need to practice. She was a minister of government. She was an all right attorney before she became a permanent politician. But that is the field she chose. So be it. [00:30:27] Speaker B: So be it indeed, sir, I. I couldn't agree with you more. It doesn't matter because I tell people what I studied in school. If I had continued on that path, I would have been an architect today. So at the end of the day, you wanted to go down to become a lawyer, you became a lawyer. But then you choose the part of politics. It doesn't matter, you're still an attorney. [00:30:44] Speaker A: I really, really like to be architect. Still do it. Because what will happen? You will come to retirement and you will decide. Look, look, I should have done this. You can satisfy your own self. [00:30:55] Speaker B: I thank you for that advice, senior councillor Israel Khan. And I also thank you for taking my call this morning. Me? [00:31:01] Speaker A: Yes. How we are analyzing the situation and so on and all that. You should study law. It helps you to really know what is hearsay evidence, what is mama Guy, what is this and that and all this other thing. Look at it. Look at a scandal of don't pay any people a million dollars each. [00:31:15] Speaker B: Well, I get to that point yet. I get to that point yet. That is the point I'm going to get to probably in the next hour, any third hour, actually. But I will accept the invitation to come and speak with you in your chambers and have a word with you one on one. Mr. Israel Khan and I thank you very much for taking my call very early this morning. Have yourself a great and safe day. [00:31:33] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the. [00:31:37] Speaker B: All new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.