Dear Editor,
First, there was Justice Nareshwar Harnanan. Then, a few days ago, there came Justice Gino Persaud. Two of our younger presences (I think) in the realms of local jurisprudence, who both displayed conspicuous gallantry in tough circumstances. As I applaud them, I remind all citizens, including those who differ from the substances of their rulings, that we must learn, possess the maturity and civility, to accept the good, with what may be unacceptable to our way of thinking. That is, if either were to adjudicate later in a different direction on a matter held dear to the heart, then the appreciation for their judicial acumen, their skill and ethos, should remain intact.
Editor, I tender that we could use a few more judges in the local arena who are constructed of the same independent strain, the tough essences, that permit the hard calls, after dutiful weighing of what is presented, what the facts are, and how they measure up. I direct no slur, no derogation, at any other jurist in Guyana, for the simple fact that I have no hard basis for any such thinking, or any inclination to such ends. It is why I persist in asserting that we must respect rulings from this branch of government, the last bulwark of liberty and hopefully shining truths, no matter how agitating they may.
Regarding the guiding forces that lead to judicial decisions, there have been writings of profoundness, and deeply reflective conclusions that list judicial hunch, or flash of insight, or unconscious bias, or individual predisposition, or realism as contributing more to holdings handed down, rather than some great imperative of law and precedent. I accept some blend of all in my own evaluations. Whatever may be the case, we have the decisions relative to a facility in Houston, East Bank Demerara that involved powerful interested parties; and a Neighbourhood Democratic Council on the East Coast Demerara, which had notables and the unnoteworthy attached at the same time. Both were much watched, and highly anticipated in what was going to come down from the judicial elevations; perhaps, lay the groundwork for the kind of impressive and inspiring rulings so needed in this country. The last tribunals having the last say, on some occasions.
In both instances, the presiding judge went out of his way to leave on the record the clearest picture of what should have been, who is responsible for the resulting abject disconnect, and what should follow, as handed down. To say that the impatient and the scorching were evident in both cases would be an understatement. I think it is fitting. When sharp messages have to be sent, as a matter of social necessity, then it is more appropriate to abandon the bland, and there is no better place than the judicial bench from which to do so.
We must have an institution that is respected, a repository that is believed to be of clean mediation for our disputes. In one precious word: trust. There has to be that sanctuary which comforts because it is overseen by men and women, who take the responsibilities vested in them most seriously, and can be trusted to comport themselves in one way only, the most principled, regardless of what is at stake, and who is involved. With this in mind, I continue to examine the state of the US Supreme Court, and how that once hallowed institution now manages in lesser days. Some of it has been the handiwork of politicians and ideological priorities; some of its loss of face is self-inflicted. The first obligation of judges can never be to political expectations, the call of the crowd, the instincts towards the self-serving. In Guyana, we know what politics and politicians mean, where such inevitably lead.
The last bastion of truth and justice that stands is our court. In some respects, it may be the only one still standing, pending infusions and intrusions given fullest consideration.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall
