Supreme Court Judge, Lennox Campbell, and the attorney for Opposition Leader and PNP President Portia Simpson Miller, KD Knight, clashed several times today in the multi-million dollar Trafigura corruption hearing.
It was legal combat between two giants.
A Supreme Court Justice, Lennox Campbell, refusing to yield an inch of his authority to the much feared Queen’s Counsel, KD Knight.
Simpson Miller who made her first appearance in the Court today in relation to the Trafigura case had a wry grin as her Attorney KD Knight and Justice Campbell clashed.
There were tense moments as Mr. Knight interrupted the representative of the DPP’s office who’d begun outlining the purpose of today’s proceedings.
The veteran Queen’s Counsel brought Justice Campbell’s attention to a Court of Appeal order that postponed the proceedings in the Supreme Court.
Mr. Knight demanded that Simpson Miller, Pickersgill, Paulwell and Campbell be allowed to leave the Court.
But Justice Campbell said before doing so he would consult the Registrar and attorneys regarding a date for the matter to be again mentioned before adjourning the proceedings.
Knight would have none of it.
Justice Campbell said “I am directing that a date be set”.
KD Knight retorted – “I am not setting any dates!,
Justice Campbell said “oh” – to which Mr. Knight said – “I will disobey any direction you give regarding dates because you have no jurisdiction”
In another sharp exchange – Justice Campbell told KD Knight to be seated, be quiet and show some courtesy!
Mr. Knight told Justice Campbell – “Do not shout at me because I can shout too!!”.
As they debated the setting of a date for Simpson Miller and company to return to Court – at one point Justice Campbell told Mr. Knight he does understand why he’s being so hostile.
Knight told the Supreme Court Judge that he, Mr. Knight is not only being hostile but very hostile because Campbell was purporting to act in a matter which he has no jurisdiction.
Tempers again flared when Justice Campbell asked Mrs. Simpson Miller and her colleague PNP members to stand.
The Judge asked the Opposition Leader if she was comfortable regarding what had transpired.
Mr. Knight intervened and told Justice Campbell that it is inappropriate for him to speak directly to Simpson Miller and he should address her attorneys.
During the proceedings Knight also accused DPP Paula Llewelyn of entering false information into the public domain last week regarding the Trafigura matter.
DPP Llewelyn did not reply to Mr. Knight.
Simpson Miller and PNP Chairman Pickersgill left the Supreme Court just after midday. About six supporters chanted “no interview” “low Mama” – “unnu guh weh”.
Mr. Knight appealed for calm.
The PNP President was flanked by her security officers and her husband, Errald Miller.
Mr. Miller insisted that no photographs be taken while he and Simpson Miller left the court.
He commented – ‘suh hol on – if mi si picha publish mi can sue ?’
Media personnel ignored him and took pictures. They also videotaped the scenes outside the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court hearing was today postponed pending the outcome of the appeal by attorneys for Simpson Miller and her PNP colleagues.
An objection by Attorneys representing Simpson Miller to the Trafigura matter being heard in the presence of the media is at the center of the appeal.
Businessman Norton Hinds and senior PNP members Robert Pickersgill, Phillip Paulwell and Colin Campbell were all in court today.
The Dutch authorities want them to answer questions about the $31-million Trafigura gave the PNP in 2006.
Meanwhile, Mr. Knight says today’s clash was prompted by Justice Campbell’s posture.
The exchanges also resulted in Justice Campbell telling Mr. Knight his behavior is unbecoming of a Queen’s Counsel.
Mr. Knight says Justice Campbell is at fault.
The attorney says an appropriate date will be set for the hearing in the Court of Appeal regarding whether the Trafigura hearing should take place in open court.
Mr. Knight is insisting that Justice Campbell was acting outside of his power and has no authority to have consultation with the registrar of the Court of appeal.
— 30 —