Upholding the immunity of the President in the CN Sharma licence suspension case, Justice William Ramlal said in a ruling yesterday that whoever held that office was not answerable in any court. Notwithstanding this however, he said the Attorney General (AG) could be sued on behalf of the state.
He dismissed the preliminary point raised by AG Doodnauth Singh that the President could not be challenged at any time in court by effectively ruling that the Head of State could be challenged through the AG. Justice Ramlal said the AG’s preliminary point had no merit.
Justice Ramlal ruled that when President Bharrat Jagdeo suspended Sharma’s licence he did so in his capacity as President, exercising supreme executive authority as outlined in Article 182 of the constitution, and was not acting as minister responsible for broadcasting.
“The applicant made no claim that when the President suspended his licence he was acting in his private capacity. When the President exercises supreme executive authority, he does so as President,” the judge said.
But while the ruling allowed for Sharma to press forward with his High Court challenge to the four-month suspension of his television licence, the judge declined to grant the conservatory order he was seeking which would allow him to transmit until the court matter was determined.
Justice Ramlal, in saying no to the order, said the preliminary points have been addressed so the substantive arguments could now be raised to determine the case. The judge said it was now time for the AG to file an affidavit in answer.
But Khemraj Ramjattan, who is appearing in the matter for Sharma in association with attorneys Nigel Hughes and Stephen Fraser, pleaded with the court to grant the order arguing that the court need not hear from the AG to put Sharma back on the air.
“It’s been approaching three months since Mr Sharma has been off the air, why must we wait for the AG to appear and for the legal arguments to continue? We will go right into the period when the suspension is over,” Ramjattan said.
The judge then informed Ramjattan that he had no intention of changing his mind about the order adding that the AG must appear to address the affidavit in answer. He fixed the matter for July 1.
The AG was not in court yesterday and his chambers was also unrepresented. Justice Ramlal said he had no idea why no one decided to show up for the ruling since notice was given in advance. Prior to the ruling, a press release was also sent out by the Supreme Court Registry informing the media and the attorneys involved in the case of the date and time of the ruling.
Justice Ramlal’s oral ruling yesterday was detailed. In it, he addressed many points raised by the AG and counsel for Sharma consequently delivering a 12-point judgment.
He made mention of Article 180 of the Constitution, which allows for redress to be sought if the President violated an individual’s constitutional right noting that it has no applicability in Sharma’s case. Justice Ramlal said only members of Parliament could seek redress under this section of the supreme law in the land, noting that other citizens are afforded redress using Article 144 when a fundamental right is violated.
Another point he raised is that the President took no oath to become a minister as is enshrined in the law, adding that the President would have also had to appoint himself minister.
Sharma’s lawyer had argued that in the letter sent to the station owner informing him of the suspension, President Jagdeo was not only acting as the president but also as the minister with responsibility for telecommunications and as such could be challenged in the court.
Justice Ramlal also berated the press for what he called, “malicious and distasteful journalism that addressed the issue of my ruling in this case”. He lashed out at the dailies without naming any, saying they printed libellous material with respect to him and his ruling. According to him, Sharma, the attorneys in the case and also journalists knew that he had to leave the country urgently and would not have been available for the initial date set for ruling, which was late last month.
Justice Ramlal said the journalists had not the decency to get a response from him in the matter and went ahead to publish, “decadent and rotten journalistic work”. He added that the media was biased in the case and stated that he will deal with the media in time. Justice Ramlal said further that the lawyers allowed the media to get away with such work without even commenting on it though they were armed with the facts.
Sharma’s lawyer wrote to Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang after the date for the ruling had elapsed seeking an urgent intervention for the hearing and determination of the matter. In the letter to the Chief Justice, dated May 21, Sharma’s lawyers said the television owner had already suffered prejudice as a result of executive action and now faced further disadvantage as a result of the delay of the hearing. They pointed out that Justice Ramlal was unlikely to return before the end of August. Additionally, the letter said, the matter touched a subject of considerable constitutional and grave economic importance to the station owner.
Justice Ramlal is still on leave, but he interrupted it to give his ruling, which he said, should have been expected given the information he had earlier disseminated to Sharma and his attorneys.
In his application before the court, Sharma requested a conservatory order restraining Jagdeo, who is the Minister of Information, his servants and or agents from suspending and/or continuing to suspend his licence until the hearing and determination of the motion.
He also sought a conservatory order staying the suspension of his licence until the matter is determined. Additionally, the television station owner requested an order nisi for Jagdeo to show cause why his decision to sit, hear and determine the complaint in which the subject of the complaint involved a threat made against him, should not be quashed as a decision which is ultra vires, in breach of the rules of natural justice and fairness and null and void.
Sharma was ordered off the air for four months over an on-air licence infringement committed in February, a move that he referred to as dictatorial and one that has sparked protests, with some calling for a reversal.
