The Alliance For Change yesterday urged that candidates for the top two positions in the Judiciary be identified and confirmed so as to avoid this branch of the state falling victim to the current difficulties and suspicions that have enmeshed the executive and the legislature.
In a statement, the AFC charged that the frequency and vehemence with which the Attorney General has initiated and prosecuted legal matters against the legislature in his quest to have the Judiciary, determine matters which are within the jurisdiction of the legislature, have “placed a significant burden on the Judiciary.”
Under those circumstances, AFC said the country faces the prospect of the judiciary being exposed to the “possible indignity of allegations of potential bias”.
The party then offered two statements relating to judicial promotion and judicial independence.
Referring to the publication `The Independence of the Judiciary. The view from the Lord Chancellor’s Office’, the AFC statement quoted Professor Robert Stevens as saying “the prospect of promotion (had) sullied the purity of the relationship between the Judiciary and the executive.”
It then referred to Lord Bingham of Cornwall who in his book “The business of judging” opined “In modern democratic societies judges continue to occupy a privileged position, but for quite different reasons. Now privilege springs from public recognition that democratic government and society as a whole can only function fairly and properly within a framework of laws, justly and fairly administered by men and women who have no obligation save to justice itself.”
The AFC said that Lord Bingham continued at page 61 “Any mention of judicial independence must eventually prompt the question independent of what? The most obvious answer is, of course, independent of government. I find it impossible to think of any way in which judges, in their decision making role, should not be independent of government. But they should also be independent of the legislature, save in its law making capacity.”
Noting that successive Presidents and Leaders of the Opposition have been unable since 2001 to agree on the appointment of a Chancellor, the AFC said that the consequence of this is that the country currently has an acting Chancellor and Acting Chief Justice at a “time when two arms the State are about to engage in open hostilities before the third.”
The AFC said that to compound this already difficult situation, is the fact that the acting Chancellor has assigned to the acting Chief Justice the hearing of all constitutional matters.
The AFC said that the inability to achieve consensus on the identification of candidates to “hold the permanent and secure positions of Chancellor and Chief Justice, is unlikely to engender confidence in the administration of justice in the light of the Executive’s declared hostilities against the Legislature.
“In order to avoid the third arm of the state falling prey to the current difficulties and mutual suspicions which have metastasized in the other organs of the State, we urge that as a matter of urgency that the candidates for appointment to the principal positions in the judiciary be identified and appointed in confirmed positions.”
The AFC added that “whenever the Executive elects to go to war with the legislature, the remaining arm of the State should at least be strong, independent and confirmed in their positions as arbiters lest at some stage during or after the battle the umpires themselves become part or the source of a new contretemps.”
