Dear Editor,
Concerns expressed by Madame Chief Justice Roxane George-Wilshire S.C. about timeliness of judgments and Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall’s S.C, expectation that the law in its shortsightedness must still be satisfied, as an officer of the Court and Member of Parliament with responsibility of shadowing the Attorney General, this cannot be ignored. The Judicial Decisions Act (2009) which was enacted without much thought and careful review of the circumstances under which judges are operating creates more of a dilemma than it addresses the issue of delay in judgments. There must be a review of this Act within the context of the government’s creation that makes the situation even worse.
I had cause to ask before for written submissions. I did so not to indict on a matter judges have little control over but instead with utmost respect and understanding of the challenges and overwhelming burden of the workload judges are facing. While note is taken of the Attorney General’s promise to improve the complement of judges, the issues affecting the judiciary are many and not just limited to failure to appoint more judges and two very significant heads who have been functioning in acting roles for almost eight years. Even as Mr. Nandlall calls on judges to uphold the Act, he must accordingly advise President Irfaan Ali to uphold the ruling of Justice Damone Younge, dated April 2023, on the appointment of the Chief Justice and Chancellor. Mr. Nandlall is reminded that the court directed that the President must act with undue haste in initiating constitutional consultation to ensure that the offices of Chancellor and Chief Justice are held by confirmed office holders.
Mr. Nandlall is reminded that any protracted or further delay in complying with Article 121 of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana is and would be inimical to the independence of the judiciary as set out in Article 22A of the Constitution. Further, the court declared the President is under a continuous mandatory constitutional duty and obligation to engage in a process of consultation in compliance with Article 127 (1) of the Constitution where there is no confirmed office holder to the post of Chancellor and Chief Justice. Clearly, the morale of persons would be affected by this continued abuse of the judiciary. Government by its actions is reinforcing the perception that their aim is to bring the Judiciary to its heel as they continue to erode the separation of powers. The Judicial Decisions Act must be reviewed or amended with a thoroughness that addresses the volume of work, the adequacy of judges, morale and supportive services needed to meet the demands of timely submission. There needs to be a thorough review of the judicial system.
So, before the Government can use this law to penalise any judge, the government must first put the Judiciary in order or face the penalty of public criticism for creating such an environment, shortcomings and tensions in the system. The guardrails of democracy are under threat and given our present environment of growing political authoritarianism the judiciary is seen as the last pillar of democracy. All efforts must be made to empower not ‘defang’ it.
Sincerely,
Roysdale Forde SC, MP
