In this publication, the author, Mr Harry Partap, Member of Parliament for Nariva, attacked CGID on the erroneous premise that the Institute criticized the Chief Justice (CJ) of Trinidad and Tobago, Justice Satnarine Sharma, "solely on information coming from his accusers."

Mr Partap further questioned "Why CGID's voice was not heard when Forbes Burnham was brutalizing the people of East Indian descent in Guyana? Where was this Institute when Eric Gairy was trampling on the human rights of the people of Grenada? Or where was the voice of this Institute when Papa Doc was systematically destroying the rights and freedom of the people of Haiti?"

It is obvious that the Member of Parliament did not truly study CGID's position on this saga before making his pronouncements. Had he done so, he would have been better informed and his judgments about the Institute would not have been so premature and appallingly misguided. While I acknowledge that Mr Partap's comments and questions may sound mildly sensational, I must however hasten to say, in the strongest terms, that both premises upon which he sought to base his arguments are severely flawed, and thus, cannot be allowed to contend.

CGID did not comment on the merit or veracity of the accusations against Justice Sharma. These substantive complaints were sub judice at the time, and the concomitant facts and evidence of the alleged misconduct were and remain unknown to the Institute. Rather, we criticized what we believed to be the litigious and obstructionist conduct of the Chief Justice, which, in our opinion, effectively obstructed the very administration of justice which he swore a constitutional oath to uphold.

We also denounced what we believe was Justice Sharma's apparent abuse of his office by exploiting his unfettered access to the Judiciary.

It is our opinion that the consequence of the actions of Justice Sharma, coupled with the erroneous injunctive relief he obtained from Justice Judith Jones, which was correctly dismissed by the learned Justices of the Court of Appeals, created a judicial and constitutional morass that has severely undermined the Judiciary as well as public confidence in that body.

CGID feels compelled to comment on this matter because it constitutes a public interest with grave implications for the Judiciaries of the Caribbean and the Commonwealth jurisprudence on the whole.  However, I wish to assure Mr Partab that our position was not casually formulated. It obtained from a thorough analysis of the known facts and circumstances of this matter by our legal affairs committee, after being briefed on the matter by a Senior Counsel.

Additionally, had Mr Pertap been marginally engaged in regional affairs or adequately researched the subject matter upon which he has pronounced, then he would have been aware that CGID was founded in 2000 by a group of young Caribbean professionals. In view of this fact, he would have known that it is impossible for us to account for ancient history that spans generations that predate our individual birth and collective existence.

The membership of CGID constitute individuals from Guyana, T&T, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominica, Nevis, Costa Rica, Antigua, the USA, St Vincent, and the Bahamas. We are strongly committed to good governance in the Caribbean region, deeper regional integration and the holistic development of the Caribbean as well as a more favorable United States foreign policy towards the region.  Hence the scope of CGID is as vast and wide-ranging as the region itself.

We admit that there are no Rip Van Winkles in CGID. Neither are we fixated on rehashing or revising history. Our focus is advancing a compelling agenda, for the Caribbean region, that is based on improved social development, good governance, Caribbean unity and increased influence and participation in hemispheric and world affairs. This is an agenda that Mr Partap should embrace.

Robert Antoine
Director of Communications & International Affairs
Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID)