Previous 29 / 43 Next

iii. the PM’s letter to the Law Association dated July 22nd, 2019 which addressed that allegation. Interview with reporter 54. Because the allegation of WhatsApp messaging from the CJ to the PM is so important the relevant parts of that interview24 dated 21st December, 2017 are set out verbatim hereunder (all emphasis added): DM: Your 19th November, 2017 article “CJ gets house…” You say that the CJ communicated by social media with a Senior HDC official. You later reported that the means of communication was by WhatsApp. DR: Yes. I can confirm that it was by WhatsApp that the CJ communicated with a Senior HDC Official. I cannot reveal the person’s identity. I asked them if I could inform you and they said no. I can tell you that the messages were exchanged between the CJ and the Senior HDC official between 2010 and 2015. DM: Was Johnson’s name listed in one of these messages? DR: Yes. DM: Do you recall the exact wording of the contents of the messages? DR: No. I saw them and I read them but I cannot recall the exact words. Huggins name was not mentioned in the exchange between the CJ and the Senior HDC official. His name was included in an exchange between the CJ and the Prime Minister (PM). It was a WhatsApp message as well but I don’t have a copy of it. I have seen and read it. There were names mentioned in the message from the CJ to the PM. These names included Huggins, his aunt Carol and another friend of Huggins but not the Coastguardsman who is not affiliated with Huggins except for the fact that they were both scammed by Kern Romero. The message from the CJ to the PM was between 2015 and 2016. 24 Record of Appeal page 458 starting at page 461 29

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