Dear Editor,
The criticisms of the Guyana Court of Appeal (CoA)’s rulings on election-related matters that have been overruled by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and rightly criticized by scholars and political pundits, have incurred the displeasure of the Chancellor of the Judiciary: “They sit in their ivory towers and make their statements on social media and otherwise; it is a sad state of affairs in Guyana.” This comment has perplexed many observers of the Guyana political scene that regard decisions like ‘33 is not a majority of a 65-House Chamber,’ as unbelievable and deserved to be critisised. The Guyana constitution does not prohibit criticisms of Judges’ decisions. Notes the prestigious US Brennan Center: “Judges aren’t immune from pointed criticism.”
There is an unwritten rule (custom) that members within the three (3) branches (Legislative, Executive and Judiciary) should not criticize one another over decisions they make. However, this custom is a colonial legacy which was designed to control subjugated people’s agitation during colonialism. But even then, attitudes had been ambivalent. The Judiciary, as part of its public interest role, for example, had gone beyond its jurisdiction to address the social ills of society. It was Chief Justice (CJ) Joseph Beaumont who described indentureship as a “monstrous rotten system.” Because he reversed a decision made by a magistrate against an indentured immigrant, he was dismissed. That was the fate of the CJ under colonialism. The Judiciary, like the Cabinet, or Parliament, is no super class. Ambi-valence during colonialism within the Judiciary has persisted into contemporary society. AFC Leader Raphael Trotman stated. “We don’t believe that the executive should be commenting on individual cases. (2/3/2017). However, he quickly undermined that position: “the judiciary is not exempt from comment from time to time and some may even criticize. This, he said, has given rise to legal opinions and decisions throughout the Common-wealth.” Ralph Ramkarran chided Raphael Trotman who “twisted the intimidatory knife in an already suppurating wound and to what end ‒ send the message home? Make sure that the Chancellor is officially humiliated by a government official? Let him know that the Cabinet will be noting his behavior?” (SN: 1/23/2017).
When the previous acting Chancellor Carl Singh made certain decisions (like the third term presidential and race baiting cases) he and the CoA were also subject to criticisms (including a call to revoke Carl Singh’s acting appointment) by the media operatives and by government functionaries. Mr. Singh reacted: “My constitutional tenure expires on the 23rd of February 2017, and until such time, unless my appointment is revoked, I intend to exercise my functions as a Judge.” While criticisms of the Judiciary are permissible, threatening behaviour and personal attacks are prohibited (as when a former coalition minister threatened a sitting Judge in 2017). Notwithstanding the Chancellor’s uneasiness with criticisms, she assured, “we [the Judges] are all transparent, we are dealing with all of this to put all the facts out in the interest of justice.” In a democracy where free speech is enshrined in the constitution and in a context where there is emerging an ‘age of reason’ and knowledge-driven culture, Judges’ decisions in accordance with this reality should be under constant review and subject to criticism by citizens.
Sincerely,
Dr. Tara Singh
