The Court of Appeal has refused to remove former president Anthony Carmona as a party to a lawsuit filed by former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar who is challenging her short-lived judicial appointment.
Delivering majority judgment at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain yesterday, acting Chief Justice Allan Mendonca and Appellate Judge Peter Jamadar dismissed the appeal seeking to reverse the decision of High Court Judge David Harris to grant her leave to pursue her judicial review claim against Carmona.
Appellate Judge Nolan Bereaux delivered a dissenting judgement in which he contended that her claim against Carmona was devoid of merit.
Ayers-Caesar’s claim against Carmona centres around his decision to refuse to reverse her resignation after she informed him he was pressured by Chief Justice Ivor Archie and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) to resign after her employers became aware that she left 52 preliminary inquires unfinished when she took up an appointment as a High Court Judge in April, last year.
Archie and the JLSC have also been sued by Ayers-Caesar, however, both parties did not appeal Harris’ decision to grant Ayers-Caesar leave.
In its appeal, attorneys for the Office of the Attorney General, who represented Carmona, submitted that the former president failure to act was not reviewable as he had no power to reverse his acceptance of Ayers-Caesar’s resignation.
The argument was rejected by both Mendonca and Jamadar.
Mendonca said: “If that submission is correct it would mean that the power in the President to reconsider the receipt of the resignation is in every case dependent on a decision of the courts that the resignation is invalid. It is arguable that that is to take too narrow and pedantic a view of the powers of the President to reconsider the receipt of a resignation.”
He went on: “It is my view, arguably, that of the President has the power to set aside the resignation, implicit in that is a power to consider the circumstances in which the resignation was tendered to determine its validity.”
In his 14-page dissenting judgment, Bereaux disagreed with his colleagues as he suggested that Carmona had no power to accede to Ayers-Caesar’s request to strike down her resignation and reinstate her.
“The resignation takes effect once received by the President. The President has no power whatsoever to set it aside. Any question as to the invalidity of the resignation will be a matter for a court of law,” Bereaux said.
Jamadar, in his 18-page analysis, stated that the lawsuit should be determined expeditiously as it had to potential to affect the reputation of the Judiciary.
“A dispute such as this one, between the JLSC and Chief Justice on one hand and a judge of the Supreme Court on the other, can only serve to undermine public trust and confidence in the legitimacy and integrity of the administration of justice, if left unresolved for any length of time,” Jamadar said.
The AG’s office was represented by Reginald Armour, SC, Ravi Nanga, Ravi Heffes-Doon and Zelica Haynes-Soo Hon. Ayers-Caesar was represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, and Ronnie Bissessar.
ABOUT THE CASE
Former chief magistrate Marcia Ayers-Caesar was appointed a High Court Judge on April 12, last year. She resigned 15 days later amid public uproar over the 52 cases she left unfinished upon taking up the appointment.
Several of the cases have been restarted and before acting Chief Magistrate Maria Busby-Earle-Caddle, with a handful of accused opting to wait on an interpretation summons lawsuit, over how the cases should be handled, is determined.
The interpretation claim, filed by the AG’s office, is yet to be fixed for a hearing.
In her lawsuit, Ayers-Caesar is claiming the JLSC acted unlawfully in seeking her resignation as a judge, that it unlawfully procured her resignation and it acted unlawfully in treating as effective her consequent purported resignation.
Ayers-Caesar is also contending that the President’s continued refusal to set aside her resignation and reinstate her as a judge is unlawful.
Ayers-Caesar is claiming she was pressured by the JLSC to resign, in that, she was told to either sign an already prepared resignation letter or her appointment would be revoked by the President. She is seeking reinstatement as well as compensation from the JLSC and the State for breaches of her constitutional rights and loss of earnings.