Dear Editor,
What passes for a judicial system in Guyana is badly broken. The sad fact is that no one is working seriously to fix it. Not the administrators, not the practising bar, not the government.
It has been broken for a long time, but in recent times it has come under public scrutiny partly because of the decisions of the acting Chief Justice Mr Ian Chang, the Magistrate’s decision in the ‘treason’ case, the Freddie Kissoon libel case, and the freeing of the NBS senior managers on the fraud charge four years after they were charged and during which time their reputations were irretrievably destroyed.
The system is also broken resulting in a severe backlog of cases. Many years ago, we were told, these would be cleared by some multi-million dollar, foreign-funded programme. Instead, this programme created a public quarrel between the former Registrar Ms Sita Ramlal and the former Chief Justice as to who received what for which work done. The backlog continues with civil cases piling up and many persons languishing in jail for as long as six years waiting for their cases to be heard. For those on bail the situation is not much brighter.
There is too another foreign-funded programme, called the Justice Improvement Programme. Both justice and improvement seem as elusive as ever.
All of this is public knowledge but no one wants to speak about it. The legal practitioners are afraid to speak out because they have to appear before the very administrators and do not wish to take chances. One lawyer has been writing about the Registry but that is as far as the profession seems willing to go.
As a result, it is now left to lawyers like Dana Seetahal writing from a place like Trinidad to express an opinion in the ruling by the Chief Justice Chang (ag) on the Henry Greene matter. I wish too to recognise Minister Priya Manickchand, attorney-at-law for her courage in speaking on the issue. It is generally agreed that the decision by Justice Chang in the Greene case sets a precedent.
My own appeal to the full Court filed on June 10, 2010 against Justice Chang’s rejection of my application to stop Synergy Holdings from proceeding with the ‘Fip’ Motilall road has not yet been heard. His ruling on the cricket board, including veiled but welcome advice to the government, has also prompted much discussion and is now the main foundational plank upon which the controversial Lloyd IMC was constituted.
The decision stopping the arbitral proceedings ordered by the Minister of Labour will also no doubt provide much discussion in legal and labour circles, but the fact remains that workers, in pursuing constitutional means of seeking their rights and reducing their grievances, have come up against a judicial brick wall.
As former Chancellor Keith Massiah has suggested in relation to the Greene affair, major issues with far reaching implications such as Greene, the Rusal arbitration, Synergy and cricket administration should be adjudicated by a panel of judges. In my view there is a clear and compelling need for such a panel as well as a Constitutional Court dealing exclusively with the kind of issues cited above.
But I note that the Chief Justice is not without his cheerleaders including attorney-at-law Mr Jerome Khan, who are ready to offer the Trinidad case involving its Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma in support of the Greene decision, but all of them unable to indicate how the circumstances in the Greene affair meet the Privy Council’s test of “rare in the extreme.”
The Constitution of Guyana requires the consent of the Opposition Leader in appointing a Chancellor and a Chief Justice (not acting offices) and the President should consult early with the Opposition Leader to secure his consent for these appointments as required by the constitution.
The President should take some time to look into this and to seek serious advice from knowledgeable sources so that we may begin the arduous task of fixing a broken system before it gets worse.
Yours faithfully,
Ramon Gaskin