Dear Editor,
The United States State Department has once again issued a report scathingly critical of the Government of Guyana’s approach to the social phenomenon of trafficking in persons. The report contains the following baffling and preposterous assertions, “the Government made no discernable progress in prosecuting, convicting and sentencing human trafficking offenders in Guyana during the reporting period… It is reportedly common for defendants to bribe court officials for favourable rulings.”
The author of this report demonstrates a shocking level of misconception, if not absolute ignorance, of the most basic tenets and rudimentary principles of our legal system. Like the United States of America, ours is a legal system which recognizes the constitution as the supreme law of the land. Again, like the United States, this constitution is predicated upon and embraces the concept of separation of powers. In this constitutional construct, government’s responsibilities are divided into three branches, namely, the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. Each is required to function independently and autonomously of the other. More particularly, a series of mechanisms exist both expressly and inherently in the constitution itself which insulate the judiciary from every type of external influence, especially from the executive, in order to ensure and guarantee its functional independence and autonomy. In short, any attempt by the executive to influence the outcome of any case pending in the courts would not only be unlawful but would amount to constitutional heresy. As far as I am aware, the identical position obtains in the United States of America.
Additionally, the prosecution of all criminal cases is the exclusive remit of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a constitutional office holder who is expressly, by the constitution itself, not subject to the influence of any other person or authority in the discharge of the functions of that office. Therefore, the government (the executive) cannot, as a matter of law, prosecute, convict and sentence human trafficking offenders. These are functions which are constitutionally extrinsic to the executive.
In this legal matrix, I must point out that the constitution guarantees to every citizen of this country the presumption of innocence as a fundamental right. Therefore, the prosecution is required to produce cogent and compelling evidence of guilt in every case in order to rebut this presumption. Whether the case is proved or not is a question of law exclusively for the trial magistrate or judge to determine. If, in the opinion of the court, the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, only then can a charge yield a conviction. In this entire equation, the executive plays no part and indeed is constitutionally prohibited from playing a part. Therefore, to hold the executive responsible for matters over which it has no control is completely wrong.
The allegation of taking bribes by “court officials for favourable rulings” is indeed a very serious one. Presumably, it refers to the magistrates themselves, for only they are responsible for the rulings. I consider this to be a most unfair and baseless attack on the integrity of the entire magistracy of this country and cannot be lightly treated. I hope that those who are in charge of the administration of justice would give this matter the importance that it deserves.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil
Nandlall,MP
