The Ministry of Legal Affairs has commenced interviews to fill vacancies for the Verbatim Court Reporting Unit for the Supreme Court, despite the court publicly distancing itself from the hiring process.
Stabroek News was told that the interview process was done in conjunction with the Public Service Ministry and two representatives from the Registrar of the Supreme Court were invited to be part of the panel but they did not show up.
This newspaper was also told that normal hiring practices were followed to facilitate the filling of the vacancies, which fall within the purview of the Public Service Ministry.
In August, a dispute between the Ministry and the Supreme Court was made public when the court, by way of an advertisement, disclaimed a notice inviting applications to fill vacancies for the court reporting unit.
The Supreme Court, in its notice, said it would not recognise the appointments.
“The Supreme Court wishes to advise that it is no way connected with this advertisement,” the notice stated.
“Applicants and prospective applicants who respond to the aforesaid advertisement and who are successful in securing employment with the Ministry of Legal Affairs are hereby advised that they should not consider themselves employees of the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court will not recognize such appointments and such persons should not expect to be accommodated by the Supreme Court,” the notice, signed by Supreme Court Registrar Rashid Mohamed, added.
At the centre of the row between the Legal Affairs Ministry and the Supreme Court is the latter’s contention that under the constitution it is the only entity that can hire its staff.
A Ministry of Legal Affairs source had said that action was taken to hire the workers since the Supreme Court has been dragging its feet in the hiring of much needed staff.
The source has contested the court’s position, saying “the constitution states specifically the category of Staff the Supreme Court can hire. These workers do not fall into that category.”
In February of this year, the National Assembly had unanimously passed the Recording of Court Proceedings Bill 2014, which was tabled by Attorney General Anil Nandlall. Nandlall had explained that the new law was aimed at speeding up the operations of the courts transcribing processes, while transitioning the verbatim reporting process from one of a tedious manual note taking process to using technologically advanced measures.
In 2012, APNU MP Carl Greenidge had embarked on a series of motions intended to ensure the autonomy of constitutional agencies and the Supreme Court. One of the objectives was to ensure that the Supreme Court was funded by a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund rather than being treated as a subvention agency by the government, which had been the case. The government eventually relented in April this year and the Supreme Court now benefits from the direct charge.
In his motion, Greenidge had pointed out that Article 122 A (1) of the Constitution prescribes that “All Courts and all persons presiding over courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of direction and control.”
Further Article 122 A (2) says that “Subject to the provisions of articles 199 and 201 (appointment of judicial, legal and public officers) all courts shall be administratively autonomous and shall be funded by a direct charge upon the Consolidated Fund; and such courts shall operate in accordance with the principles of sound financial and administrative management.” This article would seem to make it clear that all administrative matters fall under the court and not the executive.
