Dear Editor,

I write with respect to our administration of justice and unfortunately the system is just drowning day after day. I will write on this aspect later. However, I will in this column address what I perceive to be a breach of the constitutional rights of some accused persons appearing in the Magistrate’s Court and this relates to the length of time that is fixed between hearings.

Article 144 (1) of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana states: “ If any person is charged with a criminal offence, then unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.”

What is requisite is that the charge and/or trial should be heard within a reasonable time. The question that will arise is, what is reasonable?  A court looking at this question would have to look at all the circumstances and determine objectively whether any breach has occurred. The question of justice to the state and an accused person would have to be examined.

I have noted for some time now through newspaper reports and in some of the cases that I have been involved in, that there is one magistrate in the Georgetown Magisterial District who also sits one day in a country court, and that several cases of persons who cannot find bail, are adjourned to periods of up to three months or more. Recently, in late November, two women appeared before this magistrate charged with the offence of trafficking with narcotics. They both pleaded not guilty and their cases were adjourned to April 6, 2009. They were both remanded to prison and there is no likelihood that their case will commence on the adjourned date, and for sure it will not be concluded unless they plead guilty.

There is no doubt in my mind that these prolonged adjournments of persons incarcerated are a breach of their constitutional right to have a trial within a reasonable time. Let it be clear that I am not questioning the credibility and/or competence of the learned magistrate.

The question to be asked is why are there these long postponements, since given these, an unduly long time for a matter to be concluded will surely follow. Is it that the magistrate has too much on her plate?  I do believe that the magistrate feels that she has too many matters to deal with and cannot do better. But that is not good enough as the situation has to be remedied and the Chancellor and the Minister of Justice have to step in.

The Chancellor of the Judiciary, Mr Carl Singh (ag) is the person who is in charge of the administration and supervision of our magistrates. It is his duty to see that the magistrates function efficiently and that there is no breach of any constitutional rights of citizens by any officer under his control. I recall that when I was on the bench that magistrates had to submit regularly a list of cases that they had concluded, how many part-heard cases were pending, how many other cases were pending and other information. I hope that this is still in place, and if it is then the Chancellor needs to examine the lists more closely and if they are not being submitted, to ensure that they are and/or put back in place the requirement to submit the above-mentioned information.

I would wish also to mention here something different from the above. Some weeks ago it was reported in the press that Justice Patterson had to hear a matter in the corridor of the Supreme Court as there was a blackout and the generator that was installed in the Supreme Court compound was not working. I checked and it seemed that after the generator was installed several other appliances, including many air-conditioners were added to the system. These were not catered for, because if they had been a larger generator should have been installed. However, the reason for the non-functioning of the generator was poor maintenance. The supplier of the generator had written several times indicating that there was the essential need to have the maintenance agreement extended. The charge for this service was $11000 per month. The maintenance agreement was not extended and a contract was given to someone else. The result is that the generator is out of use and a judge had to use the corridor to get some work done. We are all the losers.

Yours faithfully,
K.A. Juman-Yassin