Dear Editor,
Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo has made a searing attack on a ruling by a High Court judge in the Teachers’ strike case in which the underlying issue is free collective bargaining. Despite not having read the judgment, Mr. Jagdeo yet felt comfortable using words like ‘appalling’ and ‘presumptuous’. However couched, this has to be seen as an attack not only on the judge but the judiciary as a whole. There are three branches of government – the legislative, the executive and the judiciary, each with its own functions and powers, giving rise to the concept of separation of powers. Not that the separation is clean or discrete as we see with the intermingling of the executive and the legislative. But the branch which does not allow for such intermingling is the judiciary, which has a special role in any democratic society.
Since the PPP/C’s return to power in August 2020, the guardrails of democracy are being inexorably dismantled, emphasising why the independence of the judiciary needs to be protected and defended. It is therefore dangerous when the country’s First Vice President, apparently after a conversation with the Attorney General, should use language that can undermine the authority, independence and integrity of the judiciary. As everyone appreciates, the judiciary with its layers of appeal procedures has a mechanism for its wrong decisions to be reversed. That is healthy and good for society and citizens, as well as the development of the law.
It is accepted that a decision given by any court should be open to robust but respectful criticisms, never in a way to bring the court into disrepute. Mr. Jagdeo might say that he never intended to attack the judge but only the judgment. That unfortunately is not how his statement came across, particularly since he admitted that he had not read the judgment. Jagdeo has a reputation for bullying and intimidation which creates an atmosphere of fear and what is sometimes referred to as a chilling effect. Perhaps in his statement, he was sending a message beyond the single judge and to the entire judiciary that “this can be your fate as well.”
It is not without some significance that there has been silence since Jagdeo made his ill-advised statement. But no response is not only cowardice but gives a pass to this kind of behaviour. It is true that such attacks are not unique to Guyana. Examples abound from the USA where Chief Justice John Roberts came out to defend the judges of the Supreme Court from attacks by Donald Trump, from Australia, Canada, India, Poland, the Philippines, Türkiye, Uganda and Zimbabwe. What is true as well is that in those jurisdictions, those attacks have not gone unanswered by the heads of the judiciaries.
The head of our Courts in Guyana is the Chancellor (ag.) while we have as our apex court the CCJ headed by a President. The current and the past President of the CCJ have politely criticised Guyana for its inordinately lengthy delays in confirming top judicial officers. They cannot just give up and go silent. We have the Guyana Bar Association and the Guyana Association of Women Lawyers whose members are actively involved in the judicial architecture. They are often accused of prolixity and verbosity, not of silence. The Guyana Human Rights Association must show that the attack on its leadership has not silenced it. Our institution of highest learning has a Department of Law and a Law Society. And where are the lawyers in the opposition parties in the country? And where are the Press, the Fourth Estate? That is the work they chose, but now they choose silence.
It is hard to think of any current issue of greater interest and importance than an attack on the country’s judiciary, whether direct or indirect. The silence is bewildering and troubling.
Sincerely,
Christopher Ram
Attorney-at-Law
