Dear Editor,
I write with respect to the recent appointment and swearing in of Mr. Charles Ramson, Justice Roy and Justice Cummings-Edwards as Justices of Appeal. When the announcement was made over a week ago, I wanted to write to voice my deep concern about the appointment of Mr Ramson. He was a former Attorney General and an open hard core member and or supporter of the PPP. This was the first time such a political person was being ap-pointed to the Judiciary and moreso to the highest court of this country. The members of the Judicial Service Commis-sion who are Mr Carl Singh acting Chancellor, Mr Ian Chang acting Chief Justice, Mr. Prem Persaud, Mr Bryn Pollard and Mr Ganga Persaud will no doubt go down in our history when this chapter of the judiciary is written.
I however restrained myself as I consider Mr. Ramson to be a competent lawyer and he has had years of experience. Further be-cause of his political affiliation where there are cases where the current government and or the PPP are parties, then an application could be made for him to recuse himself on the ground of perceived bias.
There are strong legal grounds and cases to sustain this argument and in any event we now have the Caribbean Court of Justice as a last resort where these issues can be resolved..
I however am greatly disturbed over the machination in which the swearing in of these three justices of appeal was done. Mr. Ramson was sworn in by President Jagdeo on Monday January 28 and Justices Roy and Cummings-Edwards were sworn in on Wednesday January 30, 2008.
There was, as far as I am aware, no valid reason why these persons were not all sworn in at the same time. They were all in Guyana and nothing, absolutely nothing prevented them from being sworn in at the same time.
The only reason why Mr. Ramson was sworn in before the other two was to give him an edge, an advantage of being considered senior to them by the fact that he was sworn in as a Justice of Appeal before them. The reason why seniority is important is because:-
a. when the Chancellor goes on leave or is away the Chief Justice will be appointed to act as Chancellor and the next senior Justice of Appeal, all things being equal, will be appointed to act as the Chief Justice.
b. When an appeal is heard in the Court of Appeal the Chancellor is the chairman of the tribunal. If he is not there then the Chief Justice if he is sitting but where there is a full complement of judges in the Court of Appeal the Chief Justice will not normally sit. Thus if the Chancellor is not sitting in a case, the chairman of the court and or tribunal will be the next most senior judge.
c. When promotion has to be made then the most senior Judge is, all things again being equal but not normally so, considered first. Thus if there should be a vacancy in the post of Chief Justice then the next senior judge should first be considered.
Currently Justice of Appeal Nandram Kissoon is next senior judge after the Chancellor and Chief Justice but he is scheduled to retire shortly. Thus by manipulating Mr. Ramson to be sworn in before Justice Roy and Justice Cummings-Edwards, he will become the next senior judge. This is palpably wrong and makes these three judges start not in pari passu (equally without preference).
This will not bring the confidence that should abound with the Court of Appeal.
Why must Justices Roy and Cummings-Edwards become junior to Mr. Ramson? It was rumoured that Mr. Ramson would be sworn in before the other two and in fact on the January 25, 2008 I mentioned it to a judge of the High Court. The question is who took this decision to elevate Mr. Ramson even before he sat? If it was Mr. Carl Singh Chancellor (ag) then that was so wrong and he should not have allowed it to happen. I had written sometime ago championing Mr. Carl Singh to be appointed Chancellor but this saga has caused me to indeed ponder.
If it was President Jagdeo then he should not have done so as our judiciary needs to be respected and there must not be perceptions that any judge is being favoured or being manoeuvred into a position for later elevation.
If it was a demand of Mr. Ramson as part of his accepting the appointment then it should have been rejected. If there is any valid reason why Mr. Ramson was sworn in before then I would gladly like to know and would apologise for thinking otherwise but I am sure that will not happen.
Fairness is greatness and justice demands fairness.
Yours faithfully,
KA Juman-Yassin
Attorney-at-Law
