Dear Editor,
The ongoing saga between the Registrar and acting Chancellor became very public with allegations made by each against the other in the media. The gist of these allegations relates to a project to reduce the number of backlog cases some time between 2005 and 2007. Information was revealed relating to sums earned by judges for work done under this project.
In several jurisdictions where there is a backlog of cases, this usually indicates the need for additional personnel in the judiciary and part-time judges are appointed for the purpose of the elimination of the backlog. It is not a difficult argument to convince a government to make an allocation specifically for this purpose.
It must be considered how a backlog develops. The acting Chancellor suggested that judges left the bench with outstanding decisions and incomplete cases. It may well be that a larger number of cases are now filed and the complement of judges not increased to represent that. Manpower planning is essential to the justice sector.
Among the retired judges in Guyana are former Chancellor Keith Massiah, Justices Lennox Perry, George Pompey, Donald Trotman and Winston Moore. It is not known if they were approached and were unable or unwilling to hear these cases.
It is not known who suggested that the current judges should be assigned these extra cases and how they were supposed to manage their current workload with additional cases.
Judges must take on the challenge and establish for themselves a code of ethics that is ahead of their times to avoid ethical entrapment. Without that, they may fail to anticipate the ethical issues and challenges at the right time causing unnecessary embarrassment that could easily have been avoided.
The judiciary, in my view can only maintain their authority where there exists respect, honesty, self-discipline and to some extent restraint, when colleagues deal with each other. Any allegation of judicial impropriety must be made to the proper authority and there is a well established rule of confidentiality in the investigations of judicial misconduct. Due to the particular role of a judge, a complaint against him or her may damage their reputation and specifically confidence in him or her as a professional person, in a way which may not be entirely repaired even by a successful outcome to the full hearing, if there is one.
To quote Chief Justice Abdulai Conten of Belize in George Meerabux v the Attorney General and the Bar Association of Belize: “It has been said and rightly so, in my view, that society attributes honour, if not veneration, learning, if not wisdom, together with detachment, probity, prestige and power to the office of a judge. Therefore, news of any probe concerning a judge would elicit public attention, whether of the concerned or the plainly curious. This may be for the public good.
“But the public weal itself will be damaged if the news is not handled with care and circumspection; for it may inevitably result in the corrosion of public confidence in the judiciary itself with deleterious effects on the administration of justice as a whole… Anything tending to convey unsubstantiated rumours, idle gossip or the salacious must be restrained, particularly in a society such as we have in Belize, which is a veritable fish bowl for almost every public office holder… for when facts and fictions collide, faction is the result.”
I hope that this unfortunate state of affairs is dealt with quickly and fairly and I can prove my colleagues wrong who say “This is Guyana” and “Nothing will come out of this.” Bonis nocet quisquis malic perpercit – Whoever spares the bad injures the good.
Yours faithfully,
Dawn A Holder
