Dear Editor,
I write to commend the Guyana Bar Association on its rebuke of the President and the Minister of Home Affairs regarding their responses to Justice Chang’s grant of bail to a murder accused whom the state had incarcerated for eight years, without trial. While the GBA’s ability to publicly rebuke the President and the Home Affairs Minister provides some reassurance that there is some freedom of expression in Guyana, the fact that it was at all necessary highlights the preference of this government like its predecessor, for a judiciary that is infested with political interference.
It was striking to read the President’s remark that “we have witnessed some element of judicial lawmaking”; making law after all, is in part what judiciaries do. I would grant the President the benefit of doubt that he intended to point out that Justice Chang had engaged in judicial activism but, as the Justice correctly responded, there is an inherent tension between the executive and judicial branches of government in democratic societies or, those societies that aspire to democracy. It is intended to be this way and it is healthy. The judiciary must serve as a ‘check and balance’ on the executive branch of government in order to protect the constitutional rights of the citizenry. As Justice Chang correctly asserted, the executive and the judiciary should not live cosily in a democratic society.
More revealing, however, was Mr Rohee’s expressed indignation that Justice Chang would have the temerity to grant bail to a suspect that the state had incarcerated for eight years, without trial. While the minster waxed eloquent about “the fundamental rights of those who suffered and are traumatized for life” he said nothing about the fundamental rights of the accused who, in a democratic society, are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If not the judiciary, who would have ensured that such a lengthy and under any circumstances, unjustified incarceration of an accused without trial, ended? His remarks suggest that he has prejudged the accused as guilty, or, he may be simply trying to score cheap political points by appearing to stand up for the citizenry whom his government has failed miserably to protect during its tenure.
I hesitate to ascribe such simple motives to Minster Rohee. I would simply conclude that the minster was ill-advised and spoke when he should have remained silent.
Yours faithfully,
Terrence Duncan
