Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06PORTOFSPAIN615
2006-05-19 13:05:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Port Of Spain
Cable title:
T&T BACCHANAL: CHIEF JUSTICE ACCUSED OF
how-toVZCZCXRO0861 PP RUEHGR DE RUEHSP #0615/01 1391305 ZNR UUUUU ZZH P 191305Z MAY 06 FM AMEMBASSY PORT OF SPAIN TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6863 INFO RUCNCOM/EC CARICOM COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PORT OF SPAIN 000615
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
DEPT FOR WHA/CAR
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV KJUS TD
SUBJECT: T&T BACCHANAL: CHIEF JUSTICE ACCUSED OF
INTERFERING IN PANDAY CASE
REF: PORT OF SPAIN 00488
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PORT OF SPAIN 000615
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
DEPT FOR WHA/CAR
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV KJUS TD
SUBJECT: T&T BACCHANAL: CHIEF JUSTICE ACCUSED OF
INTERFERING IN PANDAY CASE
REF: PORT OF SPAIN 00488
1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The Chief Justice of Trinidad and
Tobago, Satnarine Sharma, stands accused of attempting
to influence the outcome of the Panday Integrity
Commission case (reftel). Given the seriousness of the
situation, PM Manning canceled his trip to Europe for
two high-level summits. Information remains
incomplete, however, and the situation is ongoing. The
ultimate legal question is what Sharma's motivation was
in speaking with the Chief Magistrate and a State
Prosecutor in the case about one of Panday's lines of
defense. Politically, the scandal has brought the
major ethnic fault line in the country into sharp
focus. It also renews charges that PM Manning is
trying to consolidate an excessive amount of power in
his own hands. END SUMMARY.
2. (U) Trinidad and Tobago's latest public scandal
again brings the Chief Justice, Satnarine Sharma, under
scrutiny for allegedly attempting to influence Chief
Magistrate Sherman McNicolls' decision in the Panday
Integrity Commission case (reftel). This is the second
time that Sharma has been reported to the President for
alleged misconduct in judicial matters. In February
2005, Prime Minister Manning accused him of suggesting
to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Geoffrey
Henderson, and the Attorney General, John Jeremie, that
they terminate a murder case against one of Sharma's
associates (who was later found not guilty). Sharma's
first case is still before the court of which he
requested a review.
--------------
WHAT WE KNOW
--------------
3. (U) The facts that we can discern right now are
that McNicolls has alleged, in a letter to the PM,
interference in the judicial process on the part of
Sharma. Manning informed the President, George Maxwell
Richards, and then arranged a meeting with Sharma to
discuss the allegations. Sharma then lodged his own
complaint against McNicolls with the Joint Legal
Services Commission about a real estate deal McNicolls
concluded recently with a company headed by Lawrence
Duprey, one of Panday's witnesses, and the person
responsible for the disputed "scholarship" given to
Panday's wife for his daughters' education. Manning
called for a meeting with Sharma the next day,May 9,
reportedly about this issue, and a subsequent one on
May 10, canceling his trip Europe for the Spain-CARICOM
and EU-Latin American and Caribbean meetings.
--------------
SHARMA'S SPIN
--------------
4. (U) Sharma's lengthy May 10 statement released in
the print mediaclaims that Chief Magistrate McNicolls
called unannounced on Sharma on March 28, shortly after
hearing the testimony in the Panday integrity case.
Sharma claims that McNicolls volunteered that he was "
impressed by the testimony of the defense witness Mr.
Lawrence Duprey" and that "it was to his knowledge
since his mother was an East Indian that in Hindu
families the wives were traditionally entrusted with
control of the family's financial affairs" (this "Hindu
family finance" defense in the Panday case plays a
large role in the controversy). Sharma claims that he
simply suggested McNicolls should write his verdict
soon, while the matter was still fresh in his memory.
5. (U) Sharma's statement also spends significant time
on an allegedly suspicious real estate deal between
McNicolls and a company headed by Panday witness and
benefactor Lawrence Duprey. Sharma's statement implies
that McNicolls should have recused himself from the
Panday case because of it. On May 8, Sharma filed a
complaint against McNicolls with the Judicial and Legal
Services Commission, arguing that McNicolls falsely and
maliciously made a report to the Prime Minister that
Sharma attempted to influence the Panday decision.
--------------
MCNICOLLS' TAKE
--------------
6. (U) According to media reports (since his letter to
PORT OF SP 00000615 002 OF 003
Manning has not been made public),Chief Magistrate
McNicolls stated that it was the Chief Justice who
summoned him to his Chambers sometime before Panday's
trial started and told him about the "Hindu family
finance" defense. The Chief Magistrate said he became
suspicious when Panday used the same argument as part
of his defense. McNicolls further stated that he was
again summoned by Sharma on March 28, the day after the
case was closed, and was advised to look at the case
from certain angles, particularly, that the charges
against Panday were laid at a time when the possibility
of elections was in the air and to consider the public
perception that the charges were politically motivated.
He added that Sharma wanted to see a copy of his
judgment before he delivered the verdict.
7. (U) Further, Manning also received a report from
Sir Timothy Cassel, QC, one of the State's prosecutors
in the Panday case, that Sharma had raised the Hindu
family finance defense with him while on a flight prior
to the start of the case.
--------------
MANNING'S CLARIFICATION
--------------
8. (U) PM Manning entered the public fray and read a
prepared speech in Parliament on May 12. He stated
that he explained to Sharma "that there was already one
matter unresolved with accusations against him and this
additional accusation had now come forward which he
should exercise the option to demit office voluntarily
rather than be subject to any administrative or
criminal proceeding which may possibly be proffered
against him." Manning asserted that Sharma became
distraught and emotional in this meeting. Manning
further stated that he would proceed methodically in
this case and seek input from his legal advisors on the
best way forward with impeachment proceedings.
--------------
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC RESPONSES
--------------
9. (U) On May 11, Attorney General Jeremie wrote to
both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Acting
Commissioner of Police to initiate a criminal
investigation into the entire matter, including looking
into his own involvement. This criminal investigation
continues while Manning's potential impeachment
proceedings are on hold under judicial review.
10. (U) The Law Association and other legal bodies
have condemned Manning for threatening Sharma and not
following the procedure outlined in the constitution,
equating it with a power grab. The opposition United
National Congress (UNC) has picked up on this refrain,
and has worked this into their ongoing message against
PM Manning and the Peoples' National Movement (PNM) for
their alleged abuses of power.
--------------
INCONSISTENCIES ON ALL SIDES
--------------
11. (SBU) COMMENT: Sharma's report of McNicolls'
opinion of the Panday case directly contradicts what
McNicolls wrote in his judgment, which includes the
opinion that Duprey's testimony was not believable.
Clearly, at least one is being untruthful. Sharma's
extensive discussion of McNicolls' real estate deal
seems to be primarily a diversionary tactic that may
backfire by undermining Sharma's own credibility, even
if the deal improperly influenced Sharma's decision.
Further, Manning's statement only deepened, rather than
calmed, the crisis, reinforcing the UNC-held perception
that the PNM is out to grab power.
12. (SBU) COMMENT CONTINUED: The legal case boils
down to what Sharma's motivation was in raising legal
issues with McNicolls and the Hindu family finance
defense with Cassel. Sharma may have been simply
making conversation and engaging in a collegial
discussion of legal matters, or he may have been
attempting to direct parties in certain directions.
Sharma has sided with Panday in legal matters before.
In 2003, Sharma penned a dissenting opinion supporting
Panday while on a tribunal hearing a libel case.
PORT OF SP 00000615 003 OF 003
13. (SBU) COMMENT CONTINUED: There is basically no
impartial observer in this case, and everyone involved
is spinning things his own way. Further, the case
immediately took on political overtones, with PNM
supporters supporting the PM and UNC supporters the
Chief Justice. The case also exacerbates the ethnic
tension between Afro-Trinis and Indo-Trinis, Indo-
Trinis seeing this as yet another move by the
predominately Afro-Trini PNM to assert power and to
remove prominent Indo-Trinis from influential
positions. The President may ultimately be required to
determine whether to institute impeachment proceedings
for which he must appoint a tribunal to oversee the
case. END COMMENT.
AUSTIN
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
DEPT FOR WHA/CAR
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV KJUS TD
SUBJECT: T&T BACCHANAL: CHIEF JUSTICE ACCUSED OF
INTERFERING IN PANDAY CASE
REF: PORT OF SPAIN 00488
1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The Chief Justice of Trinidad and
Tobago, Satnarine Sharma, stands accused of attempting
to influence the outcome of the Panday Integrity
Commission case (reftel). Given the seriousness of the
situation, PM Manning canceled his trip to Europe for
two high-level summits. Information remains
incomplete, however, and the situation is ongoing. The
ultimate legal question is what Sharma's motivation was
in speaking with the Chief Magistrate and a State
Prosecutor in the case about one of Panday's lines of
defense. Politically, the scandal has brought the
major ethnic fault line in the country into sharp
focus. It also renews charges that PM Manning is
trying to consolidate an excessive amount of power in
his own hands. END SUMMARY.
2. (U) Trinidad and Tobago's latest public scandal
again brings the Chief Justice, Satnarine Sharma, under
scrutiny for allegedly attempting to influence Chief
Magistrate Sherman McNicolls' decision in the Panday
Integrity Commission case (reftel). This is the second
time that Sharma has been reported to the President for
alleged misconduct in judicial matters. In February
2005, Prime Minister Manning accused him of suggesting
to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Geoffrey
Henderson, and the Attorney General, John Jeremie, that
they terminate a murder case against one of Sharma's
associates (who was later found not guilty). Sharma's
first case is still before the court of which he
requested a review.
--------------
WHAT WE KNOW
--------------
3. (U) The facts that we can discern right now are
that McNicolls has alleged, in a letter to the PM,
interference in the judicial process on the part of
Sharma. Manning informed the President, George Maxwell
Richards, and then arranged a meeting with Sharma to
discuss the allegations. Sharma then lodged his own
complaint against McNicolls with the Joint Legal
Services Commission about a real estate deal McNicolls
concluded recently with a company headed by Lawrence
Duprey, one of Panday's witnesses, and the person
responsible for the disputed "scholarship" given to
Panday's wife for his daughters' education. Manning
called for a meeting with Sharma the next day,May 9,
reportedly about this issue, and a subsequent one on
May 10, canceling his trip Europe for the Spain-CARICOM
and EU-Latin American and Caribbean meetings.
--------------
SHARMA'S SPIN
--------------
4. (U) Sharma's lengthy May 10 statement released in
the print mediaclaims that Chief Magistrate McNicolls
called unannounced on Sharma on March 28, shortly after
hearing the testimony in the Panday integrity case.
Sharma claims that McNicolls volunteered that he was "
impressed by the testimony of the defense witness Mr.
Lawrence Duprey" and that "it was to his knowledge
since his mother was an East Indian that in Hindu
families the wives were traditionally entrusted with
control of the family's financial affairs" (this "Hindu
family finance" defense in the Panday case plays a
large role in the controversy). Sharma claims that he
simply suggested McNicolls should write his verdict
soon, while the matter was still fresh in his memory.
5. (U) Sharma's statement also spends significant time
on an allegedly suspicious real estate deal between
McNicolls and a company headed by Panday witness and
benefactor Lawrence Duprey. Sharma's statement implies
that McNicolls should have recused himself from the
Panday case because of it. On May 8, Sharma filed a
complaint against McNicolls with the Judicial and Legal
Services Commission, arguing that McNicolls falsely and
maliciously made a report to the Prime Minister that
Sharma attempted to influence the Panday decision.
--------------
MCNICOLLS' TAKE
--------------
6. (U) According to media reports (since his letter to
PORT OF SP 00000615 002 OF 003
Manning has not been made public),Chief Magistrate
McNicolls stated that it was the Chief Justice who
summoned him to his Chambers sometime before Panday's
trial started and told him about the "Hindu family
finance" defense. The Chief Magistrate said he became
suspicious when Panday used the same argument as part
of his defense. McNicolls further stated that he was
again summoned by Sharma on March 28, the day after the
case was closed, and was advised to look at the case
from certain angles, particularly, that the charges
against Panday were laid at a time when the possibility
of elections was in the air and to consider the public
perception that the charges were politically motivated.
He added that Sharma wanted to see a copy of his
judgment before he delivered the verdict.
7. (U) Further, Manning also received a report from
Sir Timothy Cassel, QC, one of the State's prosecutors
in the Panday case, that Sharma had raised the Hindu
family finance defense with him while on a flight prior
to the start of the case.
--------------
MANNING'S CLARIFICATION
--------------
8. (U) PM Manning entered the public fray and read a
prepared speech in Parliament on May 12. He stated
that he explained to Sharma "that there was already one
matter unresolved with accusations against him and this
additional accusation had now come forward which he
should exercise the option to demit office voluntarily
rather than be subject to any administrative or
criminal proceeding which may possibly be proffered
against him." Manning asserted that Sharma became
distraught and emotional in this meeting. Manning
further stated that he would proceed methodically in
this case and seek input from his legal advisors on the
best way forward with impeachment proceedings.
--------------
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC RESPONSES
--------------
9. (U) On May 11, Attorney General Jeremie wrote to
both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Acting
Commissioner of Police to initiate a criminal
investigation into the entire matter, including looking
into his own involvement. This criminal investigation
continues while Manning's potential impeachment
proceedings are on hold under judicial review.
10. (U) The Law Association and other legal bodies
have condemned Manning for threatening Sharma and not
following the procedure outlined in the constitution,
equating it with a power grab. The opposition United
National Congress (UNC) has picked up on this refrain,
and has worked this into their ongoing message against
PM Manning and the Peoples' National Movement (PNM) for
their alleged abuses of power.
--------------
INCONSISTENCIES ON ALL SIDES
--------------
11. (SBU) COMMENT: Sharma's report of McNicolls'
opinion of the Panday case directly contradicts what
McNicolls wrote in his judgment, which includes the
opinion that Duprey's testimony was not believable.
Clearly, at least one is being untruthful. Sharma's
extensive discussion of McNicolls' real estate deal
seems to be primarily a diversionary tactic that may
backfire by undermining Sharma's own credibility, even
if the deal improperly influenced Sharma's decision.
Further, Manning's statement only deepened, rather than
calmed, the crisis, reinforcing the UNC-held perception
that the PNM is out to grab power.
12. (SBU) COMMENT CONTINUED: The legal case boils
down to what Sharma's motivation was in raising legal
issues with McNicolls and the Hindu family finance
defense with Cassel. Sharma may have been simply
making conversation and engaging in a collegial
discussion of legal matters, or he may have been
attempting to direct parties in certain directions.
Sharma has sided with Panday in legal matters before.
In 2003, Sharma penned a dissenting opinion supporting
Panday while on a tribunal hearing a libel case.
PORT OF SP 00000615 003 OF 003
13. (SBU) COMMENT CONTINUED: There is basically no
impartial observer in this case, and everyone involved
is spinning things his own way. Further, the case
immediately took on political overtones, with PNM
supporters supporting the PM and UNC supporters the
Chief Justice. The case also exacerbates the ethnic
tension between Afro-Trinis and Indo-Trinis, Indo-
Trinis seeing this as yet another move by the
predominately Afro-Trini PNM to assert power and to
remove prominent Indo-Trinis from influential
positions. The President may ultimately be required to
determine whether to institute impeachment proceedings
for which he must appoint a tribunal to oversee the
case. END COMMENT.
AUSTIN