PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, CMC – Chief Justice Ivor Archie, Tuesday, announced his early retirement, days after renewed calls had been published in the media calling for him to demit office.
“I have decided to retire. I am a single baton in a never-ending relay,” Justice Archie told the ceremonial opening of the 2025/2026 law term at the Hall of Justice.
His early retirement brings an end to one of the longest tenures of a chief justice, with Justice Archie serving for the past 17 years, following his appointment in 2008. He was formerly Solicitor General of the Cayman Islands from 1995 until his return to Trinidad in 1998.
“When I became Chief Justice in 2008, the mandatory retirement age was 65. That is what I envisaged and that is what I prepared for,” he said, adding that high public office requires sacrifice of family and the freedom to pursue other avenues of interest.
“While it is a privilege to serve, each of us must decide what we want for ourselves at any given stage in life. Chief Justice is what I do, it is not who I am,” he told the ceremony, adding that over the past few years, as he approached the age of 65, “I have seen my life journey with greater clarity and perspective”.
He said from a corporate governance standpoint, no matter how innovative a leader may be, “ an infusion of fresh ideas from a new leader with different strengths and weaknesses is desirable from time to time/
“It is also important for me to find new challenges and opportunities as I continue to grow,” Justice Archie said, adding that the “Office of Chief Justice is private property or something you own.”
He said it is held in trust for one successor and the nation.
I am but a single runner in a never-ending relay, and the baton must be passed at some time. As any runner will tell you, the race is compromised if you don’t pass in the zone, and I am in my zone.
“I have decided to retire, not resign, at a time of my own choosing and not to wait until I reach the age of 70. There will always be unfinished business, no matter when I leave. Still, I have decided to retire during this term (and) this will be my last speech,” said Justice Archie, noting that he had decided to make the announcement now he had to be responsible in managing transition,” especially after a long period in office where the only leader most people in the judiciary know is me”.
“Transparency and seamless succession are an important part of good corporate governance. It requires careful planning and preparation and a reasonable leave,” he said.
Earlier this week, the head of the Criminal Bar Association, Israel Khan, SC, reacting to reports that Chief Justice Ivor Archie was considering stepping down, told reporters, “Good riddance.”
Khan, who has long been one of Archie’s most vocal critics, welcomed the possibility of his departure, saying, “If he is retired, my comment will be good riddance; it’s time he leaves the judiciary because the judiciary is in a total mess.”
Khan told the Trinidad Guardian newspaper that Justice Archie could be attempting to pre-empt speculation that the Government is weighing whether to invoke Section 137 of the Constitution, which allows for the removal of judges on grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity, over his role in the Marcia Ayers-Caesar controversy.
In March this year, the London-based Privy Council, the country’s highest court, ruled in favour of the former High Court judge, dismissing an appeal brought by Trinidad and Tobago’s Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) and upholding findings that her removal from office in April 2017 was unlawful.
In a unanimous decision delivered on March 24, 2025, the Board found that Ayers-Caesar’s resignation from the High Court was the result of coercion and that the JLSC’s actions violated her constitutional rights.
“The Commission brought about the claimant’s resignation,” the judgment stated, noting that the JLSC had effectively pressured her to step down under threat of disciplinary proceedings.
“Pressurising a judge to resign by holding out the threat of disciplinary proceedings, as the Commission did in the present case, circumvents the constitutional safeguards laid down in section 137 and undermines their purpose.”
and then 