Dear Editor,
I had on two previous occasions written to express my profound concern about what I considered to be a “crisis” in the judiciary. I have noted that others have also expressed their concerns and also view the non-appointment of a Chancellor of the Judiciary and or the unreasonable length of time of almost three years to so appoint as precipitating a crisis.
A group of concerned lawyers formed a committee and called themselves the Committee for the Defence of the Constitution. This Committee proceeded to file an Originating Summons in the Supreme Court in which it prayed for several orders amongst which were that (a) one person cannot hold both the office of Chancellor and Chief Justice at the same time and (b) that the continued exercise of both functions by Mr Carl Singh in the present circumstances was unconstitutional.
The matter was heard by Justice Ramlal in the High Court and on Friday, November16, 2007 he delivered his decision.He made ten orders and or declarations and amongst them were that (a) one person cannot hold both the office of Chancellor and that of Chief Justice and (b) that although the appointment of Chief Justice Carl Singh to act and or to perform the functions of Chancellor in addition to that of Chief Justice was initially proper the undue delay to appoint a substantive Chancellor made his continued appointment to act and or perform the function of Chancellor unconstitutional.
The decision of Justice Ramlal is a significant one and although it has not gone down well with President Jagdeo and his government, they must take credit in the independence of the judiciary. Justice Ramlal’s decision can be construed to be against the government and to some extent his superior the Chief Justice. Thus, President Jagdeo can truly say that our judiciary is independent and is not being tampered with!
I feel proud of this fact as the judiciary is the fountain of any democracy and it is where citizens can seek relief from any injustice they may perceive. So Mr President although you have stated that the government intends to appeal the decision you do have something to boast about.
There are however some consequences that emanate from the judgement of Justice Ramlal. Firstly if the government should appeal, then we unfortunately will not have a functioning Court of Appeal to hear and determine it. The reason is that there are currently only two justices of appeal and they are Justices Nandram Kissoon and Ian Chang. I had a few weeks ago written that Justice Kissoon will be retiring by January 2008 and so by the time this appeal comes up, if there is no solution, we will only have one Justice of Appeal. Mr Carl Singh who as Chief Justice is entitled to sit in the Court of Appeal cannot sit in this appeal as he can be considered an interested party.
Secondly, there is a provision for judges of the High Court to be selected to sit in appeals in the Court of Appeal on an ad hoc basis. However, the judge or judges are selected by the Chancellor or person so acting, but Mr Carl Singh who is performing this function would be precluded from selecting judges of the High Court to make up a panel, as I have stated earlier he is an interested party.
Therefore unless our politicians can sit down and appreciate the seriousness of the situation and stop making Guyana a laughing stock, our justice system will grind to a halt. Did I mention that our politicians cannot agree on the composition of the Judicial Service Commission and as a result there can be no new appointments on the wide spectrum of offices which come under this commission? What a shame!
There is another factor in relation to the judgement of Justice Ramlal. It puts Mr Carl Singh in a very delicate position. He has been the pawn in this political process and will end up in what is termed collateral damage.
The question now is what will Mr Carl Singh do! The Court has ruled that he is now acting unconstitutionally as being acting chancellor and chief justice at the same time. If he disregards the judgement of Justice Ramlal and continues in both positions then this will be a flagrant violation of a decision of the High Court. Even if there is a stay of the orders, which I do not think will happen, it would still be imprudent for him to continue in both positions as it will be a bad example for the Chief Justice to set.
The rule of law must prevail and be respected until ruled otherwise by a higher court and I anticipate that Mr Carl Singh will make a decision.
Yours faithfully,
KA Juman-Yassin
Attorney-at-Law
