Commentator Christopher Ram says an inquiry should be set up by President Donald Ramotar into the appointment of Justice of Appeal, Rabi Sukul who has been asked to resign after he was disbarred by the England and Wales Bar Council for drafting false grounds of appeal in a UK case.
Justice Sukul’s censure led to the Chancellor of the Judiciary Carl Singh issuing a statement on Saturday saying that he had become aware of the February 3rd 2014 disbarment on Friday and after confirming this had requested the immediate resignation of the judge who has acquiesced.
Justice Sukul was sworn-in before President Ramotar on July 26, 2013 and one of the immediate questions that arose on Saturday was whether disciplinary proceedings had commenced in the UK before that date. His legal troubles would also raise the question
of whether he had communicated this development to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and whether the JSC had conducted an adequate assessment before deciding to recommend him for appointment to the bench.
Yesterday, Ram, an attorney at law and chartered accountant, said that no matter how this issue is presented, it is a “huge embarrassment to the country, the Government, the Chancellor, what exists of the Judicial Service Commission, the Attorney General and the legal profession.”
Ram, who made his views known on his blog at chrisram.net said that the statement from the Chancellor’s Office did not offer any reason for his action in seeking Justice Sukul’s resignation as opposed to moving to have him removed in accordance with the Constitution.
“If the Chancellor’s call for the resignation and Justice Sukul’s compliance were seen to be the end of the matter, they would invite all kinds of speculation by a justifiably skeptical public”, Ram contended.
He said that for the public to be satisfied, the action by the Chancellor “leaves no option but for the President who appoints and removes judges to set up an Inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Justice Sukul. Such an Inquiry will necessarily exclude the three ex officio members of the Commission and must have the power to subpoena records and persons. We have to make sure that the architecture that permitted this travesty to occur is dismantled.”
Under Article 197 of the constitution, the JSC could petition the President for the removal of a judge and under this article the President would then appoint a tribunal to investigate which would then advise him on whether or not to remove. This procedure has been employed before.
Ram contended that the Sukul saga has exposed serious flaws in the constitutional arrangements governing the JSC and its methods of operation.
Arguing that Guyana needs a more effective judiciary, Ram said that the public expects improvements to a judiciary that often appears dysfunctional and brings the country into disrepute as in the present case.
He posited that the constitutional arrangements governing the composition and conduct of the JSC need fixing with provision for an independent Chairman and it has to be less tolerant of serial vacancies.
“But we must not fool ourselves: our legal problem neither begins nor ends with the judiciary. The Guyana Bar Association, of which I am the Secretary, has been largely silent while the judiciary and the Justice Improvement Project on which billions have been spent seem to move in opposite direction. As the Bar Association considers its response to the Sukul issue, it must also address the improper conduct of legal practitioners, including their employment of touts. It has to justify the privileged place society accords the legal profession and to recognise that its objects extend well beyond representing lawyers’ interests”, Ram argued.
Earlier in his piece, Ram had cited shortcomings as they relate to the composing of the JSC. While it has three ex-officio members: the Chancellor, the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission it could have up to three other members after consultations between the President and the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Leader of the Opposition but these positions have not been filled.
He said that this means that the JSC as currently constituted comprises only the ex officio legal officers (Justices Singh and Ian Chang) and Carvil Duncan, “a PPP appointee to chair that other dysfunctional body called the Public Service Commission.”
Ram said that the Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman seemed not to have been aware of this process of consultation and that this reflects poorly on him and the Chancellor. He added that no appointment to the JSC arose out of consultations with the Opposition Leader.
Ram said that this situation raises the question as to whether the JSC could and should have acted without its appointed members, including making such an important decision as appointing a fourth judge (Justice Sukul) of the Court of Appeal.
“But even if we assume it could, the question arises as to the criteria, rather than just the qualifications, for appointment of such a judge. Another is the actual process for advertising, receiving, collating applications, shortlisting and arranging for proper interviews and independent background checks, particularly of applications from abroad and of any recommendations or testimonials submitted, etc”, Ram contended.
Added to this is the interview itself and the importance of purging the process to remove any real or perceived conflicts of interest.
“To top it all, there must be transparency and some public information about the entire process the output of which influences and determines an important arm of the state which wields immense power and influence on what we own and how we conduct ourselves. No information was provided in the case of Justice Sukul”, Ram asserted.
Noting that the Caribbean Court of Justice will hold its inaugural sitting in Guyana beginning from today, Ram said that “Fate could hardly have been crueler… It should have been a moment of pride for our judiciary and a tribute to our own Justice Madame Desiree Bernard, CCH, OR on whose long legal career, including a place on the CCJ, the curtain will soon close. Instead, the cocktails and lunches being arranged for our distinguished visiting legal luminaries will not erase the embarrassment” of Justice Sukul’s disbarment.
