I note with interest, coupled with amusement, Mr Israel Rajah-Khan’s attempted chastisement of attorney Brian Baig (Express, 30 June 2022 –https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/letters/vulgar-claims-against-legal-system/article_51b5cda2-f801-11ec-858e-33817f45e547.html)
Mr Baig has given a semi-appropriate response (Express, 2 July 2022 – https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/letters/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/article_bc6124ba-f998-11ec-aea9-27ee4e1a5bd3.html ).
Taking Mr Rajah-Khan’s article first:
Mr Rajah-Khan apparently takes umbrage over Mr Baig’s highlighting that several prominent Indo-Trinidadians are or were before the courts on charges, but were/are unsuccessfully prosecuted by the PNM. He then went on to point out that the charges are proffered by the DPP, and heard before an independent judiciary.
Where Mr Rajah-Khan obviously went wrong is that the evidence does not stack up on this position. In the latest Privy Council’s judgment, John Henry Smith and another v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and others (2022) UKPC 28 (Smith judgment), the Law Lords at the Privy Council certainly made a mockery of Mr Rajah-Khan’s position. In other words, they delivered a serious ‘calpet’ on Mr Rajah-Khan’s perspective.
In paragraph 2 of the judgment, the judges clearly pointed out that the Anti-Corruption Investigation Bureau (ACIB) was established within the Ministry of the Attorney General under then AG John Jeremie. This makes it a political entity. It is this political entity which brought charges under the Piarco 1-4 cases. For Mr Rajah-Khan to say “I can state categorically that there is not a single criminal case in this country whereby a political party prosecuted—be it PNM, NAR or UNC Partnership” demonstrates that he did not read the judgment at all!
In the Smith judgment, the Privy Council judges also clearly pointed out that the judiciary was not independent in any way whatsoever! Not only was there bias on the part of Sherman (Shermie) McNicolls, he was financially and in other ways beholden to John Jeremie, a PNM politically appointed Attorney General!
Note that under the Integrity in Public Life Act, Basdeo Panday an Indo-Trinidadian, remains the ONLY person charged, despite hundreds of others over the past 10 or more years failing to file the mandatory records. And of course, the Privy Council also ruled that under Sherman McNicolls, there was apparent bias in Mr Panday’s trial due to the political obligation Shermie placed himself when accepting financial and other benefits from the AG, John Jeremie. The Smith judgment merely confirms what was raised and proven 12 years or so before!
Additionally, Mr Rajah-Khan states “All citizens, regardless of race, class or creed, if charged with a criminal offence, must receive a fair trial”. Of course, this is what should happen. We all know that what should happen is different from what does happen. Shermie proved that over and over. I have long blogged about his corruption. That much is not in dispute, and is in the public domain if anyone should choose to do a little research. Given that he was the Chief Magistrate, this makes it all the more appalling!
The Smith judgment also showed that High Court and the Court of Appeal in Trinidad and Tobago applied less-than-stellar reasoning. One can only wonder why the population is reluctant to turn to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the final appeal court, given that some of its judges come from the same pool… But that is a story for another day.
Mr Rajah-Khan also mentions “two other prominent East Indian attorneys’ names were mentioned in his sordid letter but their criminal cases are before the court, and thus sub judice, and it would be unethical to mention their names in my letter.”
The sub judice rules apply when mentioning something currently before the court will influence the outcome of the trial, or in other words, prevent a fair trial. Surely the names of the attorneys so charged are in the public domain? Their matters will be listed on the court website. Thus, why would mentioning their names prevent a fair trial?
Mr Baig himself made a tactical error in his response to Mr Rajah-Khan. Instead of addressing the issues Mr Rajah-Khan brought up, he misdirected himself to point out a 19-point list of PNM corruption, which have not been prosecuted. That may be relevant to political point-scoring but fails to address the core issues. If Mr Baig wished to set Mr Rajah-Khan right, refute the points he made, not introduce new tangential issues.
I urge Mr Rajah-Khan to be more circumspect in voicing his opinion. After all, he has 43 years’ experience at the Criminal Bar.
