The judge at the centre of the now politically charged debate regarding his rulings in the property tax case and others believes allegations of “forum shopping” stem from race, politics and coincidence, according to a reliable source close to Justice Frank Seepersad.
The source spoke to Guardian Media yesterday and pointed out that “human error” or “manipulation” of the case filing and assignment system is possible, but not by any judge.
Seepersad’s rulings in at least three recent cases —the injunction blocking the implementation of the property tax, stopping the Commissioner of State Lands from demolishing squatter homes and barring the Judicial and Legal Service Commission and Office of the President from appointing two new High Court judges—has placed him at the centre of scrutiny from the Government and members of the public. Two of his rulings—the property tax injunction and against the appointment of the judges—have since been overturned by the Court of Appeal.
In an interview with Guardian Media, the senior legal figure claimed race and politics were behind the frenzy of allegations of possible misconduct.
But race and politics are actually at the bottom of the list of theories about what happened, how and why.
According to the source, “while it is true that the case assignment process is computerised...and there is no human intervention, it is highly possible for a person with access to the mechanics of the system to change the weightings of matters, meaning a change in the weightings of matters could affect how cases are assigned.”
A second flaw, he pointed out, is the possibility that incorrect case file numbers could be manually filled out on the case forms. Wrong case numbers would also affect how matters are assigned to judges.
At the same time, the source said what happened to Seepersad in the last two weeks was both an unheralded development and a coincidence.
On the theory that related matters or cases with similar context are often assigned to the same judge to save the court time in background research and case law, he said while that is true there is also a possibility that judges with higher turnover of matters are assigned new cases in a shorter period of time.
On how Seepersad came to be assigned the matters, he also pointed out there was a roster which provided for one emergency judge per week. But he insisted that only confidential court employees had access to that information. He added that only the Chief Justice himself could authorise the reassignment of a case without committee oversight.
And what about the suspicion surrounding the turnaround time for Seepersad’s written judgment? Claims that Seepersad wrote a 22-page legal judgment in less than half an hour are now being categorically denied.
