Wavering confidence

The vote of no confidence in Attorney General John Jeremie, passed by the Law Association, was simplistically condemned by Minister Colm Imbert as a political attack on the PNM, because a small handful of lawyers with known political affiliations attended. This is the typical response of the Government to any form of criticism or disagreement in our society: If you’re not with them, then you must be against them.

It is difficult to reconcile the fact that the votes varied on the three issues raised in the motion, with the allegation that it was a blind political attack from politicians masquerading as politicians. The motion had three items, all of which were voted on separately. Item A “condemned in the strongest manner reported attempts by the Hon Senator John Jeremie to improperly and illegally interfere with criminal prosecutions for political purposes.”

That was carried by a vote of 121 for and 67 against. Item B “condemned in the strongest manner the reported attempts by Jeremie to undermine and threaten the constitutional independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.” That was carried by 127 for and 59 against.

Item C “that it (the Law Association) has absolutely no confidence in the Honourable Senator John Jeremie as Attorney General and as titular head of the Bar of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago” was carried by a vote of 106 for and 82 against. The fact that over two-thirds of the members thought the action and conduct of the AG were deserving of strong condemnation, because they threatened to undermine the constitutional independence of the DPP, cannot be flippantly dismissed by the Government.

Purchase independence

Unlike Mr Imbert, I wouldn’t assume that my colleagues who receive juicy state briefs from Mr Jeremie automatically voted for him. Yes, many of them openly supported him at the meeting; but equally, many of them expressed concern, alarm and disquiet at the “robust” attitude of Mr Jeremie towards former DPP Geoffrey Henderson.

I refuse to share the belief that the PNM has been able to “purchase” independent thinking in such a manner. Conversely, I cannot assume that my colleagues who do not support the PNM voted in favour of the motion because of ignorant political bias, without reference to or without genuinely considering the serious issue debated.

The variation in the figures shows that Mr Imbert’s interpretation of the vote as a political attack was no more than political self-defence. The assumption that all PNM supporters would be so ignorant and sycophantic that they will support the Government, come what may, is hopefully flawed when it comes to professionals.

Disagreeing with the Government on certain issues does not transform you into an Opposition supporter. On the ground, even PNM supporters are complaining about crime and poor healthcare. Many disagree with the expenditure priorities of the Government. They remain “PNM to the bone,” but openly and freely criticise the incompetence in governance.

This is democracy at work. That said, I wish to highlight the fact that the UK is also trying to resolve the tension between the offices of the AG and DPP and re-define the role of the AG. A consultation paper has been published for discussion “to examine ways to strengthen confidence in the administration of the justice system, and in the rule of law through reform of the historic role of the Attorney General, begins today.”

UK case

Baroness Scotland, Attorney General, and Vera Baird, Solicitor General said, “…the government’s commitment to rebalancing power between the executive, legislature and the people inevitably involves reform of this historic office, which straddles different parts of the constitution. “As we come to reform the role, we need to make sure we address those areas where there is potential for conflict whilst enhancing the administration of justice, the maintenance of the rule of law and the protection of the public interest.

[Site Admin note: See relevant documents at end of this commentary and attached in downloadable form. Documents reproduced give full credits to their authors and originators.]

“The current nature of the Attorney General’s role has given rise to a debate that has focused on tension between the various functions of the Attorney General—being a minister and a member of the Government, and being an independent guardian of the public interest and performing superintendence functions (eg on decisions relating to sensitive prosecutions); tension between being a party politician and a member of the Government, and the giving of independent and impartial legal advice.”

As the issue of constitution reform is once again on the agenda, Mr Jeremie’s “robust” and “inappropriate” behaviour might yet benefit society by underscoring the importance of the need for a truly independent DPP.

It might very well be the catalyst for society to insist on an appropriate level of political insulation and protection for the office of the DPP.

By Anand Ramlogan