Dear Editor,
Rather than perpetuate the issue by seeking to obdurately justify the executive’s right to criticize the judiciary, it would have been better if the Office of the President had let its disassociation from the Home Affairs Minister’s criticism of the recent decision by the acting Chief Justice to grant bail to a double homicide accused awaiting trial for eight years, be the end of the matter. (‘Judiciary cannot expect to be exempt from public criticism – OP,’ June 1).
By perpetuating the issue with this new statement, OP is drawing attention to its shameless propensity for not only wanting the last say, but wanting to make the point that the executive branch is prepared to engage the judiciary in a public showdown to establish some sense of superiority. It is said that government is of the people, by the people and for the people, with government, in this context, meaning the executive, legislative and judicial branches. In that vein, I have been at pains trying to explain in recent letters that these three branches provide counterweights to each other in service to the public, and that no one branch is superior to another. It’s called the checks and balance system.
But while the President has a role in the composition of the judiciary, the role of judicial members is to interpret and apply the law and to ensure justice is done and seen to be done. It is not their role to please the President or his government. In fact, judges and magistrates, void of fear or favour, can rule for or against the government in cases involving citizens or private organizations.
I don’t know if he had anything to do with the preparation of this OP statement, but, Dr Prem Misir, known for his voluminous writings on behalf of the executive, ventured an argument in one letter several weeks ago that it is standard for the executive branch to question or disagree with decisions handed down by the judiciary.
But while this is true in many democracies where the three branches of government exist, Guyana is not like other democracies. Guyana only returned to the fold of nations that stage free and fair elections in 1992, arguably the first major step in the democratic process, but as far as the entire democratic process is concerned, 16 years later Guyana is yet to move away in dramatic fashion from the concept of party paramountcy that obtained under Forbes Burnham’s PNC regime.
This PPP regime under Bharrat Jagdeo continues to demonstrate that there is some benefit to ensuring the ruling party and executive branch are in absolute control of the judiciary and the legislature, as well as every other institution and agency. Political fingerprints are deliberately being left the way animals in the wild leave their scent marks on tree trunks and huge boulders to send messages to other animals passing through that the domain is already taken.
But the Guyana Bar Association need not feel intimidated by the public challenge thrown down by OP’s release, because the GBA is one of the many stakeholders the executive branch recognizes as essential whenever there is a major crisis and the executive branch wants to wallow in consensus so the public can see that even stakeholders are on its side.
Other civic society stakeholders that willingly show up when OP calls an emergency meeting need to take note that they, too, have a responsibility within the framework of an emerging democracy, to be ready and willing to openly challenge the executive branch and not behave like stakeholders in name only.
I again want to compliment acting Chief Justice, Mr Ian Chang, for his powerful public statement that shows, while he owes a debt of gratitude to the President for reposing confidence in him to serve as acting Chief Justice, he is prepared to be a leader of an independent judiciary and will not be bullied by the executive branch.
I close by reminding readers of an observation made in the letters column not long ago about the method to the madness of there being so many acting appointments in government: they are used them like the Sword of Damocles over the heads of appointees in the event they do not comply with the executive branch. This clearly is a manifestation of dictatorial thinking.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
