It was Mr Ralph Ramkarran who in an uncompromising column published in this newspaper last week, drew the public’s attention to what he called the Guyana Chronicle’s “obscene calumny” against Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Carl Singh. It had been going on, he said, for several months, and “the Chancellor had been warned to go on pre-retirement leave and not to hear any ‘political’ cases.” The Chancellor is due to retire on February 23, and the state newspaper had quoted what it called a “prominent attorney,” advancing the view that “[i]t must be ensured” Mr Singh does not take on new cases, so he could not use these as an excuse to extend his term of office.
The reference to political cases relates to the appeal hearing against former Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang’s decision that the presidential term limit is unconstitutional. This case was widely seen as an attempt to clear the way for Opposi-tion Leader Bharrat Jagdeo to stand for a third term, although he has denied he is seeking such. In any event, there is no need for the government to say anything about the Chancellor hearing the case, because as Mr Ramkarran pointed out, if they don’t like his ruling in the matter, they can always appeal it to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Mr Ramkarran mentioned two government officials in relation to this campaign. One was Minister Raphael Trotman, who he said had “joined the bandwagon and threatened that Cabinet will ‘note’ the Chancellor’s decisions,” and the other was Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, under whose portfolio information falls, and who therefore was in a position to stop the state paper but had not done so. “The only conclusion,” he continued, “is that the Chronicle’s rampage against the Chancellor and subversion of the judiciary is official government policy.”
However, in a move which caught everyone off guard, the Prime Minister on Thursday during his feature address at the Police Officers’ Conference disassociated himself from what he described as the “perceived scurrilous attacks” in the Chronicle against the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary. He told the assembled officers: “In as much as any citizen, or the government for that matter, may criticise decisions emanating from our courts which, after all, are not cloistered halls immune from public scrutiny, our Government does not encourage attacks on the legislature and judiciary. It is not Government’s policy or decision to besmirch the character of any judicial officer. Our Government would not condone attempts, however well meaning or veiled, to impugn the integrity of judicial officers.” He subsequently went on to extol in so many words, the virtues of the separation of powers.
The implications of his statements are a matter of considerable interest. While he did say that he would not interfere with “editorial discretion”, he did not appear to be suggesting that this was a campaign dreamed up by the Chronicle all on its own account. Since he has distanced himself from it, the inevitable conclusion is that Attorney General Basil Williams is piloting this offensive, given both the content of the reports in the paper, and the fact that the AG wrote a letter asking for the case to be adjourned until a new Solicitor-General was found.
So whose view actually represents the government position? Prima facie, as Mr Ramkarran has averred, it would appear to be that of the Chronicle, ie, the AG. If so, is the Prime Minister now out of step with the government position on this issue, and is he the only minister who is at odds with it, or is there a split in the Cabinet? Or has the difference in viewpoints been aired at Cabinet at all? Whether or not it has been, how is Mr Williams able to overrule Mr Nagamootoo where the state paper is concerned? Does that say something about the latter’s influence in government ‒ or lack of it, rather? And does this difference of opinion represent a split between APNU and the AFC on what is after all a fundamental constitutional matter, or has the AFC been too taken up recently with their own internal politics to expend any thought on it?
All of that aside, this whole episode merely reinforces in a dramatic way the fact that the Chronicle is still the vehicle for government propaganda and sometimes polemic, and despite all the pre-election promises has not made the transition to becoming a media outlet more reminiscent of the BBC than Granma. One cannot think that on such a key constitutional issue, independent editorial management left to its own devices would not have exercised greater judgement than to carry the report captioned ‘Singh strikes twice,’ to cite one example, on January 19. In the end, this government no less than the last one, wants a newspaper which it can control. The only issue on this occasion is who in the government is exercising that control.
Reams have been written on the separation of powers of the three branches of government – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary – and the need to preserve the independence of the latter. Justice Singh himself while addressing the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association Conference last year said that the Constitution provides that all courts and persons presiding over them “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.”
He acknowledged that members of the executive will be especially concerned with checks on administrative decisions that have political consequences. However, he issued the reminder that judges are guided by the law and the constitution and decisions are not based on “whim and fancy”; furthermore, any attempts by the executive on the affairs of the judiciary must be “firmly but politely resisted.” The court is, after all, he continued, the guardian of the constitution, and for their part the judges are the protectors of the fundamental rights of citizens. He also alluded to the fact that judges had taken an oath to honour, uphold and preserve the constitution.
So what is the current AG’s view, one wonders, on the independence of the judiciary and its constitutional foundations. At least, if what he has said recently as reported in the Chronicle represents his thinking on the matter, then he may be deviating from the accepted constitutional norms. If he is, then he might be reflecting more the approach of former Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee, who also attacked the judiciary in 2008 and said among other intemperate things that it was increasingly becoming more favourably disposed to upholding the fundamental rights of accused persons. The difference between then and now is that the Office of the President at that time distanced itself from Mr Rohee’s outburst.
While court decisions cannot be above comment, that comment should be made in a reasoned and reasonable way. However, in order for judges to function as the constitution and the rule of law envisage, they cannot be subjected to pressure or what could be perceived as bullying. If they are, they will be afraid to perform their functions and discharge their duties as required under the constitution. This would mean a fundamental pillar of our constitution would be undermined, and judges could no longer be relied on as guardians of citizens’ rights. Whatever that is, it is not liberal democracy.
Where the current issue is concerned, Mr Ramkarran put it best: “This open, blatant and shameless intimidation, is not meant only for this Chancellor. It is a message to the next Chancellor and Chief Justice, who will be appointed shortly, and for the entire judiciary, to toe the line. Neither the judiciary, the Bar nor the public can afford to be silent at these alarming developments. If not arrested now, they will only get worse.”
