Previous 4 / 43 Next

5. An order is consequently sought that the Court of Appeal’s earlier dismissal of the election petitions be set aside and they be heard by a new panel of the Court of Appeal. 6. The allegations, including the HDC allegations, were the subject of an investigation by the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago (LATT). LATT’s executive summary of the report produced on its behalf after that investigation and the legal opinions it received in relation thereto were forwarded to the Honourable Prime Minister (PM) by letter dated December 13th, 2018 for his consideration as to whether proceedings under section 137 of the Constitution should be initiated by him2. The PM by letter dated July 22nd, 2019 (the PM’s letter) declined any suggestion that he should initiate proceedings under section 137. 7. On October 3rd, 2019 LATT initiated judicial review proceedings against the PM in relation to that decision (the judicial review proceedings or JR proceedings). Those proceedings are currently pending before the High Court. The applicant contends that those proceedings were relevant because some of 2 Section 137. (1) A Judge 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, and shall not be so removed except in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) A Judge shall be removed from office by the President where the question of removal of that Judge has been referred by the President to the Judicial Committee and the Judicial Committee has advised the President that the Judge ought to be removed from office for such inability or for misbehaviour. (3) Where the Prime Minister, in the case of the Chief Justice, or the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, in the case of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, represents to the President that the question of removing a Judge under this section ought to be investigated, then— (a) the President shall appoint a tribunal which shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two other members, selected by the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister in the case of the Chief Justice or the Prime Minister after consultation with the Judicial and Legal Service Commission in the case of a Judge, from among persons who hold or have held office as a Judge of a Court having unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters in some part of the Commonwealth or a Court having jurisdiction in appeals from any such Court; (b) the tribunal shall enquire into the matter and report on the facts thereof to the President and recommend to the President whether he should refer the question of removal of that Judge from office to the Judicial Committee; and (c) where the tribunal so recommends, the President shall refer the question accordingly. 4

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

In re Representation of People Act and the September 7, 2015 Elections.

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the potential for Chief Justice bias is sufficient to overturn the dismissal of a petition challenging election results.

Alleged Acts: Six petitions were filed to challenge the October 7, 2015 election results. The petitions were dismissed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal again dismissed after the petitioners appealed. In 2017, articles were published relating to the Chief Justice and the Housing Development Corporation. The petitioners allege that the Chief Justice was biased at the time of the original dismissal based on the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) recommendations. Further, the petitioner allege that the Chief Justice was required to disclose the allegation to the election petition parties.

Procedural history: The allegation involving the HDC were referred to the Prime Minister for potential action, but the Prime Minister declined any suggestion to initiate proceedings under his purview.

Summary: The legal test for determining bias is as follows: “whether a fair minded and informed observer apprised of all of the relevant facts being neither unduly suspicious, nor complacent would conclude in circumstances that there was a real possibility of bias.” The allegation against the Chief Justice include claims that he sought favors from the government, including Whatsapp messages to the Prime Minister after the election. The court stated that there was not sufficient evidence for a fair-minded and informed observer to find a logical connection between the messages and the election outcomes. In particular, the court stated that both political parties could claim bias, which suggests that the two are not sufficiently linked to a particular outcome.

Conclusion: The court determined that there was no real basis for the conclusion that Chief Justice was bias and the appeal was dismissed.

Legal Issue(s)

Civil Procedure
Electoral Integrity
Judicial Independence

Region: Americas

Country: Trinidad and Tobago

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Feb 6, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 10.669365883149688

Longitude: -61.46749247356304

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

CvA_16_s293DD06feb2020.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

In re Representation of People Act and the September 7, 2015 Elections.

Primary Documents

Notifications