Justice crisis another Martinelli bolt hole?

THE CURRENT crisis in the Supreme Court may have given Ricardo Martinelli’s lawyers another move to prevent or delay his trial for illegal wiretapping and embezzlement.
The National Assembly Credentials, Ethics and Judicial Affairs Committee began on Tuesday January 18, the legal analysis ofa letter sent last week by the president of the Court Jose Ayu Prado, about statements made by his colleague Harry Diaz on TeleMetro.
Deputy Jorge Ivan Arrocha, who chairs the commission, said it is too early to advance any criteria on the action to take, but any decision must arise from a consensus.
In the note sent by Ayu Prado on January 14 was a copy of a statement made by Justice Diaz, in which he made harsh accusations about the process of election of officers of the Court, and exposed the control that ex-president Ricardo Martinelli exerted on the judiciary and confirmed the existence of political factions in the CourtAyu Prado also attached a copy of a note from Harley Mitchell, judge of the Civil Court two weeks ago, addressed the Assembly on October 26, 2014, in order to rule on the content of an interview with Diaz, published, in the “Knockout” of La Prensa. Diaz criticized as a bad practice that colleagues shelved records and sold judgements.
The letter calls on the Credentials Committee and president of the National Assembly to consider whether Diaz should be called to present evidence.
On Friday January 15, a day after the statements of Diaz, Arrocha said that filing a formal complaint was required to open a process in the case. But sectors of civil society sais that the Credentials Committee could cite Diaz. Meanwhile Rogelio Cruz, attorney for Ricardo Martinelli, announced that he will file a challenge for Diaz to be separated from the process against his client for allegedly committing crimes against the inviolability of secrecy and privacy and embezzlement.
Cruz said the appeal will be based on Article 50 of the Code, which states “judges may be challenged by the parties for conflicts of interest or serious grounds affecting the fairness, as relations kinship, fellowship, friendship, enmity and trade with any party “.