Two death row inmates have threatened to impeach Chief Justice Ivor Archie for his failure to deliver judgments in their cases for more than three years. The threats were made in the second stage of their legal action against Archie and the judiciary in less than two weeks. The warning was sounded, in a letter sent to Supreme Court registrar Marrisa Roberts yesterday, by attorney Criston J Williams, who is representing two convicted murderers—Lester Pitman and Gerard Wilson.
In the letter, Williams advised Roberts that he intended to send a complaint to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, asking her to exercise her discretion under Section 137 of the Constitution to advise President Anthony Carmona to initiate impeachment proceedings against Archie.
“On the most generous interpretation of the facts of these respective cases, the conduct of the Honourable Chief Justice amounts to a breach of the claimants’ constitutional rights and may amount to misconduct within the meaning of Section 137 of the Constitution,” Williams said. He alleges that Archie’s handling of the situation has the “effect of seriously undermining the confidence in the administration of justice.”
Williams stated that he decided to pen the letter, after he sought advice from leading constitutional lawyers in the United Kingdom, who advised him to give Archie an opportunity to respond to the allegations of his role in the delays, before contacting the Prime Minister. He said if his clients did not receive a response from Archie by the given deadline, he would commence the threatened action.
The appeal for Persad-Bissessar to exercise her constitutional power is the only recourse available to Williams as the complaint could not have been taken to the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, which is headed by Archie. In his letter, Williams also noted that he was yet to receive a response on a pre-action protocol letter on the issue which was sent to the Solicitor General’s office last Monday.
In that letter, Williams noted that he had threatened to file a constitutional motion against Archie and the judiciary, because the delays allegedly breached his clients’ constitutional rights. In his letter yesterday, Williams provided a table of 25 criminal appeals which were dealt with by the Appeal Court over the past 15 years, in which judgments were delivered within a year of the hearing of the appeal.
“What is astounding about an examination of this information is that during the time that these appeals were being heard, the court had much less resources than is presently available,” Williams said. He then compared these appeals to his clients’ appeals, while stating that Pitman has been waiting three years and nine months for his judgment, with Wilson’s being outstanding for more than four years.
“The claimants have been made to suffer tremendously as a result of the conduct of the Honourable Chief Justice in these matters,” Williams said. He also refered to several outstanding civil appeals, in which Archie led the appeal panel, including one involving environmental groups People United Respecting the Environment and Rights Action Group against the Environmental Management Authority over the proposed construction of a aluminium smelter plant in La Brea, which has also been outstanding over four years.
Williams stated that because of Archie’s role in as head of the appeal panel that sat on some of the outstanding appeals, he had a responsibility to ensure that the judgment were delivered in a reasonable time.
When a CJ can be removed
The last time impeachment proceedings were taken against a chief justice was in 2005, when former chief magistrate Sherma Mc Nicolls made complaint over alleged misconduct by then chief justice Sat Sharma. Former prime minister Patrick Manning then advised President George Maxwell Richards, under Section 137 of the Constitution.
The section states that the chief justice may be removed from office only for “inability to perform the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misbehaviour.” The section advises that the prime minister has to advise the President in circumstances when complaints are made against the chief justice.
Under the section in the event of a complaint, the President has to select a three-member tribunal to investigate the complaint and report back to the him on whether the chief justice should be removed. It also gives the President the power to suggest the suspension of the chief justice while the complaint is being investigated by the tribunal.
Richards had formed the tribunal and Sharma was suspended. However, Sharma mounted several legal challenges, which culminated with a Privy Council appeal in which he was cleared of the allegations.