Dear Editor,
Justice Ramlal’s ruling that it is unconstitutional for Chief Justice Carl Singh to perform the duties of Chancellor and at the same time perform the duties as Chief Justice has brought the pot to boil.
It has now become incumbent for there to be a resolution to the matter and for there to be an appointed Chancellor of the Judiciary. President Jagdeo, and the government are now galvanized to proceed. I do not wish to state here who is right and wrong for there not being an appointment. That factor could be discussed at another time but as stated by Dr Luncheon recently “the Ramlal ruling has implications for the smooth functioning of the judiciary”. The message is loud and clear!
Our constitution states in Article 127 (1) that ” The Chancellor and Chief Justice shall each be appointed by the President, acting after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition”. Therefore the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition must be obtained for any appointment of the Chancellor and Chief Justice. Unfortunately our good members of Parliament in drafting the Constitution did not include any further provisions to break any deadlock. What short-sightedness!
The position as I understand, is that President Jagdeo favours Mr Carl Singh to be appointed Chancellor. Mr Corbin who is the Leader of the Opposition initially favoured then Justice of Appeal Claudette Singh. However, she demitted office on October 31, so she is no longer in the equation. Mr Corbin had favoured Justice Claudette Singh among other things, because of her seniority as a judge. I have been reliably informed that Mr Corbin is now proposing the Director of Public Prosecutions of Barbados who is also a Guyanese.
Thus at the meeting between President Jagdeo and Mr Corbin they will have to decide the pros and cons for the persons who are put forward. It is my sincere wish and I know that this is the wish of all good thinking Guyanese that all the persons put forward must be and should be examined dispassionately. We should not expect anything less for although the “politicians ” are making the appointments of Chancellor and Chief Justice, I do not consider them to be political appointments. These persons must be independent, impartial, be able to give their decisions or judgements without any political consideration and to have administrative ability.
Mr Corbin is reported in the Stabroek News of 12-07-07, to have
“expressed his concerns, including a public perception that the nominee (Chief Justice) had a predisposition of favouring the state rather than ensuring the rights of citizens whenever the two interests were in conflict”.
Mr Corbin has not now said there that he will not support the appointment of Mr Carl Singh but expressed his concern and his perceived public perception that Mr Carl Singh had a predisposition of favouring the state rather then ensuring the rights of citizens whenever the two interests were in conflict. He must first be satisfied that his concerns and the perceived public perception are without justification. There is nothing wrong with this.
Mr Corbin is an Attorney-at-Law, a politician of many years and the Leader of the Opposition. He is surely a responsible person and one who can make an informed decision once all the facts are before him. I will now examine the credentials of Mr Carl Singh and try to see if he fits the suit to be Chancellor of the Judiciary. I do not think that I am being presumptuous to look into the merits and or demerits of him, as it is my belief that the opinion of every Guyanese should be considered.
Mr Carl Singh is about 54 years of age, married and the father of two children. He was a schoolteacher before proceeding to study law. He comes from a rice farming family and values the importance of agriculture. He qualified as an attorney-at-law about 20 years ago and went into private practice. He was appointed a temporary Land Court Judge and served creditably in this position for about nine months. He returned to his private practice and was later appointed a Judge of the High Court. He served in this position doing both civil and criminal cases and was subsequently promoted as a Justice of Appeal. He served with credit in the Court of Appeal until he was appointed Chief Justice. There was no major objection from the public and or by the Opposition and/or politicians, when he was appointed Chief Justice. As a result of the departure of Chancellor Bernard in 2005, he was appointed to perform the duties of Chancellor and has been doing this since then.
The questions one must ask is what has he done as Chief Justice and or acting Chancellor to justify a permanent appointment of Chancellor. I do believe that the following are some of the factors which could be in his favour :-
(a) He began to formulate a programme to tackle the massive backlog of cases that threatened to strangle the administration of justice;
(b)He has been able to implement this programme and it was reported recently how greatly the pending cases have declined. I want to note here that a vast amount of the cases termed as completed was not tried but got rid of as either abandoned, settled or could not have gone forward. Literally the getting rid of the dead-wood in the system. The point is that this should have been done a long time before he was Chief Justice and he must be given credit;
(c)The start up of the Commercial Court with its new rules for the expediting of cases that fall within its jurisdiction. The court is proving to be a success and matters are moving forward more quickly than before. This court has been welcomed by the financial institutions and the legal profession and once both judges assigned to it work full time it will undoubtedly be a success;
(d) The start up also of Mediation and the training of Mediators. The plan is that mediation could help numerous matters being settled and so help the court system and Mr Carl Singh in moving this sector along was being constructive by seeking to implement the success from other jurisdictions. It is still in its formative stage and with time it will be an immense tool in the justice system.
(e) He was able to convince the IDB, the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and India that our judiciary needed assistance and as a result assistance was forthcoming.
(f) Our law library has been stocked with a wide variety of books and law reports and it is now a library where one can do proper research.
(g) His performance as Chief Justice under the then Chancellor Bernard was excellent and they both had an excellent working relationship. As far as I know there were no complaints from Chancellor Bernard as regards his carrying out the duties of Chief Justice.
(h) Since being appointed to act as Chancellor he has been able to manage both the office of Chief Justice and Chancellor. That is by itself a feat and there has been no complaint that his performing both functions in any way affected their respective administration. One can argue that he should have spent more time hearing appeals in the Court of Appeal so that one can see how he coped but the fact is that he had sat there before as a Justice of Appeal and normally sat in the Full Court in its appellate jurisdiction in his position as Chief Justice.
(i) I have no doubt that as a judge he is amongst the brightest we have now and is respected by his peers.
(j) He carries himself as a judge and as a potential Chancellor. As far as I am aware there is no blemish on his record as a judge or as Chief Justice or as Acting Chancellor.
(k) As far as I am aware few of his decisions have been set aside. Every judge must expect at some time or the other that some of his decisions will be set aside so his record is good. I am not aware that any court has found that he acted unfairly when determining the right and interests of the public and or citizens.
I would next like to consider the danger or any likely danger of
appointing Mr Carl Singh as Chancellor.
Will he be able to orchestrate the running of the judiciary?
The Chancellor is the head of the Judiciary and now has general supervisory provisions over the administration of the High Court which he may or may not supervise. This does not mean that the next Chief Justice will be merely a puppet or a rubber stamp. I would expect that in a society such as ours where there are no secrets, any proper Chief Justice will ensure that his integrity will not be compromised. We have always considered the Chancellor to be the head of the Judiciary and the recent amendment merely gives effect to the de facto position. I personally was unhappy that this amendment was passed when it was, as it was felt there was no need for it when there was an impasse as to who would be appointed Chancellor.
We have to be able to trust and have confidence in our judges so that even if the Chancellor should select a judge to adjudicate in a matter, at the end of the day it is that judge who has to determine the matter and or give judgment and not the Chancellor.
The Chancellor as the head of the Court of Appeal sits as chairperson and selects which judges will sit in appeals. Matters in the Court of Appeal are determined by a bench of three judges unless it is a matter of great importance when there can be a bench of five judges. The point again here is that the Chancellor is one among three or five judges. Each judge has to decide for himself or herself and should not take any command to go one way or the other. So in the Court of Appeal the vote of the Chancellor is only one. Are our other judges or those who will be appointed mere puppets? I hope not.
The Court of Appeal is no longer our final Court of Appeal but rather the Caribbean Court of Justice. Thus, if any litigant is dissatisfied about a decision of the Court of Appeal that decision can be tested in the Caribbean Court of Justice. The Chancellor and the other judges know that their decisions can be set aside and therefore must apply the Law.
I am one of those persons who had longed for decades to have a higher Court than our Court of Appeal.
It is said that Mr Carl Singh is close to President Jagdeo. First of all Guyana is a small country and it is not unusual for a person to be well known. I do not believe that Mr. Carl Singh will lose his professional integrity for any friendship.
He is young and I am certain will aspire to become a judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice and thus will not do anything that will be detrimental to this elevation. Further Mr Jagdeo has about four more years in his presidency and Mr Carl Singh has over 15 years before he retires.
I have written several letters critical of the fact that there has been no appointment of a Chancellor and that for this state to have an acting Chancellor for about three years is most unreasonable and unsatisfactory.
I would like to publicly state that as a result of the foregoing and having considered the merits and demerits of the service and work of Mr Carl Singh, that I consider him to be a fit and proper person to be appointed the Chancellor of the Judiciary of Guyana.
If it is true that the Director of Public Prose-cutions of Barbados is interested in a judicial appointment in Guyana then that is good, and there are and or will be many vacancies in the Court of Appeal and High Court where he can serve. Mr Carl Singh is known to us, he has been tested and has in my humble view, passed the test to be appointed the Chancellor of the Judiciary of Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
KA Juman-Yassin
Attorney-at-Law
