D.P.P.’s Lawsuit Against Chief Justice Heard

There is an unprecedented case before the courts involving the Director of Public Prosecutions. While serving as the President of the Bar Association, Cheryl-Lynn Vidal was ousted from meetings held by the Judicial Legal Services Commission, of which she is a member by way of her position at the Bar.  In March of 2018, Vidal made her way to a meeting of the commission, but upon arrival, Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin requested her to withdraw because there was an uncertainty that Vidal, as D.P.P., can be a member of the commission due to her status as a public officer.  After the Bar Association did not receive a response to a request for a reason, a lawsuit was launched against the Chief Justice. The CJ presides over meetings, which include other members such as the Solicitor General and the Chair of the Public Services Commission. The matter was heard today in the courtroom of Justice Michelle Arana where the Bar’s attorney Andrew Marshalleck outlined his client’s position. 

Andrew Marshalleck

Andrew Marshalleck, Attorney for Bar Association

“The argument is based on two sections of the constitution: section 110 E (2) and section 110 E (3). Section 110 E (2) says who is to be the members of the commission. It says that the commission shall be comprised of, shall meaning mandatory has to include, the Chief Justice, the Solicitor General, the Chairman of the Public Services Commission and the President of the Bar. So that section in is beyond doubt. President of the Bar has to be a member of the commission. The constitution mandates it. Subsection 110 E (3) now says and it starts out with three critical opening words. It says subject to subsection to, any person who is a member of the National Assembly or is a public officer is effectively disqualified from being a member of the commission. Now, that is a disqualifying section indeed but what is the effect of the opening three words “subject to subject two”. It makes subsection three subservient to subsection two. It makes subsection three subservient to sub section two. It means that subsection three cannot displace who the members must be in accordance to subsection two. The President of the Bar, Mrs. Vidal as president to the bar is entitled and must sit in the commission regardless of whether or not she happens to be a public officer, which of course she is the D.P.P.”