Farewell To Sharma

The tenure of Chief Justice Sharma has been so coloured by the controversial attempts by the state to remove him from office that a lot of the good that he has done might be forgotten or not credited to him. On the eve of his resignation, I think it appropriate to highlight some of his achievements.

A career judge who served in the judiciary for some 24 years, (appointed as a High Court Judge in 1984 and as Justice of Appeal in 1988), he was awarded the Chaconia Medal (Gold) in 1998 and the Trinity Cross in 2003. In 1995 he (along with other senior judges in the court of appeal), was bypassed for the office of CJ as Michael De Labastide agreed to leave his lucrative private practice and serve as CJ.

It is quite a sacrifice for a lawyer to leave private practice and serve as a judge. A fixed salary paid by the state is hardly attractive when compared to the legal fees a good lawyer can earn. The country owes all our judges a debt of gratitude for the tremendous sacrifice they make.

One host on a recent radio talk show made comments which implied that Sharma was racist and had tried to stack the judiciary with Indian judges. This is unfortunate and untrue. Three judges were promoted to the Court of Appeal during Sharma’s reign. They are Ivor Archie, Alan Mandonca and Paula Mae-Weekes. Several new high court judges were appointed : Mr Mark Mohammed, Mme Mira Dean-Armorer, Mr. Anthony Carmona, Mme Carol Gobin, Mme Judith Jones, Mme Joan Charles, Mme Charmaine Permberton, Mr Devant Rampersad, Mr Stuart Brook.

One of the things I admire the most about CJ Sharma was the fact that he was never afraid to record a dissenting judgment. This was so even if he was the most junior judge on the panel. He has delivered several landmark judgments that have contributed to the development of on a vast array of subjects including human rights, family law, intellectual property and criminal law. The Privy Council has paid tribute to many of his illuminating judgments and he has established himself as a formidable legal scholar.

The new Family Court is perhaps one of the most notable achievements during Sharma’s time. It is a state of the art facility that has eased the burden on the high court and has changed the culture of matrimonial law. The new rules of court which the legal profession did not allow former Chief Justices to implement were in fact implemented without too much fanfare by Sharma. This has revolutionized the system of adversarial litigation as we know it and is working for the benefit of the public as opposed to their lawyers. In time, the delays will lessen and the system will deliver justice at a faster pace.

The drive to end long-hand note taking in court has resulted in 75% of our courts being outfitted with audio-digital recording equipment. This is a huge relief as it is painful to watch judges painstakingly handwrite every word uttered in court. The reaction of witnesses who give evidence in court is one of disgust, bewilderment and amusement. Thos archaic system is on its way out as our courts are now user-friendly, high-tech and modern. A good example is the video conferencing capability of the courts which allows judges to remain where they are and convene court via a video conference with lawyers in different courts in different locations.

There is one area that not enough progress was made and that is the Magistracy. Sharma was able to better the security arrangements for magistrates, spruce up a few court buildings and get a new San Fernando magistrates court but by and large, the magistrates court system remains overburdened with work to the point where it is malfunctioning. I suspect lack of funding from government may be behind this under-development but its about time that the poor mans court be upgraded. We need double the number of magistrates and a few new court buildings urgently.

Another area of concern is the fact that Sharma was not able to set some performance measurement targets for judges so that hard-work and ability can be recognized and rise to the surface. Should there not be a rule that judgments must be delivered within 6-8 months after a trial is completed? How can the system fairly promote judges when there is no mechanism to monitor performance? This explains why there is so much disappointment when some judges are elevated to the court of appeal. There are several hard-working judges in the high court who merit consideration for promotion but never seem to make it. Is the system fair and transparent?

Thank you for serving us so well, Mr Sharma.

By Anand Ramlogan 2008-01-20