RAMESH MAHARAJ

25 YEARS LATER

 

FROM JAILBIRD TO AG

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S ILLUSTRIOUS CAREER

 

By Francis Joseph

Newsday

April 16, 2000

Pages 9 & 17

 

It is ironic that when the Commission of Inquiry into the administration of justice opens tomorrow, it will also be the 25^th anniversary of the jailing of Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj for contempt of court.

 

At the time, Ramesh was a barrister from San Fernando, married, with three infant children.  Today, he is Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago.

 

Maharaj, who had been in practice for just eight years, created history by being imprisoned for seven days at the Royal Gaol in Port of Spain.

 

His jailing and subsequent vindication by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the beginning of a struggle for justice, and today, for accountability within the administration of justice.

 

As the years rolled by, Maharaj was the one-man Human Rights Bureau, which he established in 1978.  He filed many constitutional motions, was mainly responsible for opening up the system of judicial review and public law, he was against the death penalty, he challenged the system and was even charged with conspiracy and soliciting someone to commit murder.

 

Today, as the Guardian of the State, there has been an abut turn in one area of his career.

 

He fought tooth and nail for the retention of the death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago and succeeded where many failed.

 

His momentum of pushing for the death penalty placed his name in the history annals by being responsible for the execution of nine killers over a three-day period in 1999.

 

As he looked back 25 years ago to his jailing, Maharaj said he would do it all over again if the opportunity presents itself.

 

He said he was never rude to the court and what he did was stand up for his rights as a lawyer who was representing clients.

 

He never felt intimidated and believed the judge was unfair to him.

 

Before Ramesh decided to study law, he was attending St Andrews Theological College in San Fernando hoping to become a Presbyterian Minister.

 

He suddenly decided to pursue law and went to England.  He was admitted to the Bar in London in November 1966 and returned to Trinidad in July the following year.  Little was herd of Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj until that fateful day of April 17 1975.

 

Ramesh became the first barrister in the English-speaking world since 1607 to be imprisoned for contempt of court for something he said while actually arguing a case in court.

 

The series of events that led to that record being set had started three days before.  What happened on April 17 was merely the culmination.

 

Since the beginning of April 1975, Ramesh had been involved as junior counsel in a constitutional appeal in the Court of Appeal.

 

The appeal had lasted longer than was anticipated.

 

The result was that on April 14 Ramesh was still in the Court of Appeal and could not appear in the San Fernando Civil Court.  Basdeo Persad-Maharaj, a barrister who later became a judge, stood before Mr. Justice Sonny Gulab Maharaj and sought an adjournment.

 

Mr. Justice Maharaj refused and dismissed the case.  Another case involving Ramesh was called and again was the victim of the same judge's refusal to adjourn.  Basdeo Persad-Maharaj could not argue the case on Ramesh's behalf so he withdrew.

 

He sent for Ramesh's wife Lynette, who was in another court, but who was not familiar with the case; Ramesh eventually lost.

 

In two days, Ramesh lost on two occasions in his absence.  On April 15 Ramesh appeared for Mini Maxi Limited but again he was in the Court of Appeal.  Basdeo Persad-Maharaj withdrew from the case and Mini Maxi insisted they wanted Ramesh Maharaj.

 

The two witnesses, both doctors, gave crucial evidence about the plaintiff's injuries, yet no one was there to cross-examine them.

 

Ramesh was now convinced that, through no fault of his won, three of his clients had suffered grave prejudice because of the attitude taken by Justice Maharaj.

 

On April 16 a deeply worried Ramesh went to Mr. Justice Maharaj's court for a procedural matter in another case and produced a bombshell.

 

"I would like to apply to the court to disqualify yourself from sitting in any matter in which I am appearing," Ramesh told the judge as he outlined the facts of the previous two days.

 

The judge limited his remarks to the brief statement, "application refused."

 

Fifteen months later, when Mr. Justice Maharaj publicly revealed his reasons for acting as he did, he commented on the events of April 16: "Mr. Maharaj, in my opinion, had made very grave and offensive charges against the integrity and impartiality of the court in a courtroom full of litigants and in the presence of numerous barristers and solicitors who during this attack upon the court, all seemed nervous and dumbfounded at what was taking place.

 

"I myself was flabbergasted as I too had never before witnessed such conduct in a court of law.  I paused for a few moments and then merely refused Mr. Maharaj's application with the comment I thought that he had abused his privileges as a barrister that morning."

 

"I did not take any action against Mr. Maharaj on that morning, shocking as I thought his conduct was, as I felt that, given a chance, he would see the folly of his ways.  He was a young practitioner whose outbursts I was prepared to attribute to youthful impetuosity."

 

"I sincerely hoped that even if Mr. Maharaj was not big enough to retract what he had so unfairly alleged and apologised to the court, he would have nevertheless, on reflection, realised the enormity of his conduct and perhaps mend his ways in the future."

 

When, therefore, Ramesh stood up in that court at 10:03 a.m. on the morning of April 17, there was already a background of tension and ill-feeling between him and Mr. Justice Maharaj.  He asked for the two doctors to be recalled for cross-examination.  But this was refused by the judge.

 

The next step resulted in Ramesh being placed behind bars.

 

MAHARAJ:

Having regard to what I submitted this morning and what I submitted yesterday…I reserve the right to impeach these proceedings.

 

JUDGE:

Are you suggesting that this court is dishonestly and corruptly ding maters behind your back, because it is biased against you?

 

MAHARAJ:

I do not think this is the right place to answer that question.  I do not think the question arises.  But I say you are guilty of unjudicial conduct having regard to what I said yesterday.

 

JUDGE:

Mr. Maharaj, you are formally charged with contempt of court and I now call upon you to answer the charge.

 

MAHARAJ:

I am asking to have an adjournment to retain a lawyer.

 

JUDGE:

Application refused.

 

MAHARAJ:

I am not guilty.  I have not imputed any bias or anything against Your Lordship.

 

JUDGE:

Mr. Maharaj, do you have anything to say on the question of sentence?

 

MAHARAJ:

I want to consult Dr. Ramsahoye to whom I have spoken about this matter and as a result of whose advice I appealed in other matters.

 

JUDGE:

Seven days simple imprisonment.

 

When he did give his reasons for the sentence, Mr. Justice Maharaj said, "in my opinion, Mr. Maharaj carried his insolence and contumely much too far now and the time had come for the court to take a firm hand of the situation."

 

At this stage I told Mr. Maharaj that he had indeed made very serious allegations against the court and that I was going to ask him a question, which I proposed to record in my notebook.

 

"I explained to Mr. Maharaj that the situation had become very serious and I wanted him to think very carefully before giving his answer to the court."

 

"This was a contempt of court in the face of the court which had, in my opinion, to be dealt with summarily.  The nature of the attack on the court and the insistence with which it was pursued made the case one which called for immediate punishment of the contemnor."

 

"Taking all the factors into account I considered Mr. Maharaj's conduct so outrageous as to merit a term of seven days' simple imprisonment and I so ordered."

 

Ramesh was taken away by he police and placed in the smelly cells of the San Fernando Police Station.  He was then driven to the Royal Gaol to begin his seven-day sentence.

 

However, Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye QC, solicitor Carlyle Kangaloo and his wife filed a constitutional motion and obtained his release from prison from Mr. Justice John Braithwaite.

 

When Mr. Justice Braithwaite was ready to hear the motion, he was removed and replaced by Mr. Justice Garvin Scott.  On July 23 Mr. Justice Scott ruled against Ramesh and he had to return to prison to serve the next six days.

 

Dr. Ramsahoye sought a postponement of the sentence from the Court of Appeal, but the then Chief Justice Sir Isaac Hyatali refused the stay of execution.

 

Ramesh pursued his constitutional motion to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, leap-frogging the local Court of Appeal.

 

David Turner-Samuels QC argued the case for Ramesh before Lord Salmon, Lord Edmund-Davies, and Lord Fraser, and on July 27 1976, Lord Salmon concluded that the order committing Ramesh to prison for contempt be set aside.

 

Ramesh had been vindicated.

 

Although the Privy Council had rules the Court of Appeal still heard the appeal.  By a two to one majority, the Appeal Court dismissed Ramesh's appeal.

 

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Maurice Corbin dismissed the appeal, while Mr. Justice Clement Phillips dissented.

 

Ramesh went back to the Privy Council in 1977 to clear his name.  He won the case and the matter was remitted to the TT courts for the assessment of damages.

 

From thereon, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj became a household name.

 

One of the highlights of his career was representing the Jamaat Al Muslimeen to fight the amnesty issue arising out of the attempting coup of July 1990.

 

He retained English QC Geoffrey Robertson and succeeded in the release of the 114 insurgents, although that decision turned out to be wrong, according to the Privy Council.

 

He argued constitutional motions for condemned prisoners including Kirkland Paul, Andy Thomas, Kitson Branche (all of whom were pardoned in 1987).

 

In 1985, he argued the case for Peter Sookoo who was contesting the decision of the President to extend the tenure of service to Cecil Kelsick to continue as Chief Justice.

 

After the high profile extradition of insurance executive Dennis Davidson from Orlando, Ramesh successfully defended Davidson on the criminal charges.

 

Another major case in which Ramesh was part was the motion filed by Wayne Whiteman who claimed that he was not informed of his right to counsel while in police custody.  He won in the Privy Council in 1991.

 

Ramesh got involved in politics and fought the Couva South seat in the 1991 general elections for the UNC.

 

He retained the seat in 1995 and became Special Advisor to cabinet when the UNC-NAR formed the Government.

 

He became Attorney General on February 2 1996.

TOP