Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall SC recently issued a call for compliance by judges with the law requiring them to render written judgments in the stipulated six-month timeframe, while stressing that compliance is expected.
He was at the time addressing the matter in his weekly Facebook programme, “Issues in the News,” aired on October 12th, 2021.
Days following the live broadcast, Senior Counsel K.A. Juman-Yassin weigh-ed in on the issue, which he described as a “delinquency” among “most” judges and called on them to “put themselves in order.”
He said that it presents the justice system in an “opaque” manner and opined that the duty of ensuring compliance should rest squarely with the Chancellor.
While lauding the judiciary for the recent launch of its revised code of ethics, which he noted embodies principles to which it has decided to hold itself in ensuring integrity at the highest standards, the AG said that the judiciary must also recognize the need for it to even more, uphold the law.
Nandlall said that this is not being done, and against that background urged compliance.
He stressed that “as a matter of law, not ethics,” once a matter has ended, a judge has six months within which to complete his or her written judgment.
“While it’s good that we’re doing code of ethics, we also have to comply with the law…unless that law is repealed…rescinded [or] revoked…It is the laws of this country, and it must be complied with,” the AG said.
“And, therefore, one would expect that there will be compliance, and that decisions will be handed down in accordance with that law,” he further added.
Meanwhile, Juman-Yassin in a letter to the Editor of this newspaper, published on October 17th, 2021, said that while a “few” judges adhere to the timeline, “I would say that from my practice and from what my other colleagues at the Bar tell me, that this delinquency is not in some judges but most judges.”
According to the Senior Counsel, he could say “without any fear of rebuttal” that there are some judgments pending for years, even as he advanced that the malaise is not only in the non-delivery of judgments but in many judges failing to write their decisions after an appeal was filed.
He said that this “sad state of affairs” brings the judiciary into disrepute “and I ask that it be rectified and judges put themselves in order.”
He then shared that he had appeared in an appeal for a Respondent and that the matter has not been heard by the Court of Appeal for over 15 years “despite my writing several letters to the then Chancellors.”
Juman-Yassin said that his client died some years ago without enjoying the benefits of his judgment. “And I hope that his estate will benefit. But when?” he added.
Nandlall, who is also Minister of Legal Affairs, said on his programme that it is common knowledge that judges are non-compliant.
“Ah mean, you talk to people on the streets, and they tell you how long they are waiting. I get that people feel that the Attorney General has some influence over the pace at which the judiciary works,” he said, while making it clear, “I don’t.”
Nandlall said that all he can do is address the issue publicly and urge compliance with the law.
Meanwhile, Senior Counsel Juman-Yassin offered the suggestion that the Chancellor request from each judge the number and names of all decisions that have been pending for over three months.
This list, he said, should then be transmitted to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to ensure its accuracy—that the files are with the respective judges—and for there to be follow-ups to monitor the delivery of the judgments. He said that the list should also be transmitted to the Bar Council so that the members of the Bar can check to ensure that none of their matters fall between the cracks. “The duty is on the Chancellor of the Judiciary to ensure compliance,” he concluded.
