Attorney General Charles Ramson yesterday introduced the “Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Bill 2009” in the National Assembly, with the intention of specifying time limit for decisions by judges, in accordance with the Constitution.
Under Article 197 (3) of the Constitution, a Judge may be removed from office “for persistently not writing decisions or for continuously failing to give decisions and reasons therefor within such time as may be specified by the Parliament….” Upon enactment, the law would apply to Judges of the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Full Court. Additionally, cases concluded before the commencement of the law where decisions have not been given would be subject to comply.
The judicial system has been frequently described as being slow and inefficient, with resolution of court cases often prolonged unreasonably.
The Bill provides that “a case shall be tried as expeditiously as possible in an endeavour to conclude the case within such a time as the complexity and the relevant evidence necessitate.” It proposes that a judge who presides at the trial of a civil case shall give an oral or written decision and the concomitant reasons at the conclusion of the hearing of the case or as soon as possible-but not later than 120 days afterward.
It also proposes that where the Court of Appeal or the Full Court hears an appeal, a Judge on behalf of the Court or each Judge of the Court shall give a written or oral decision at the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal or as soon as possible-but not later than 30 days afterward.
The Bill also seeks to give effect to Article 197 (3), saying a Judge may be removed for persistent failure to give written or oral decisions and reasons for decisions within the time specified in the new law. Where a Judge fails to write or give decision, the Bill says that the Chancellor would cause the Registrar to notify the Judge of failure to comply. If the Judge does not comply, action would be taken under Article 197 with a view to removing him or her.
However, the Bill does set out instances for an extension of time to be granted by the Chancellor. It stipulates that a Judge shall apply in writing, within a period of twenty-one days before the expiration of the specified time limit, giving reasons and evidence of the circumstances necessitating the extension and the proposed duration. The Chancellor, the Bill says, would have discretion to grant any specified duration of extension of time, including in cases where the case is complex, where the Judge has fallen ill and provided that no injustice results from the extension. But where the Chancellor is not satisfied that an extension ought to be granted, the Judge would be directed to give the decision within 30 days of the expiration of the time limit.
The proposed law would also require Judges to inform the Chancellor where they failed to comply with the time limits. Additionally, the Chancellor is empowered to require, by regulations, judges to submit annual reports accounting for cases they have been assigned.
Meanwhile, the Bill also provides for the Chancellor to instruct the registrar to submit to the National Assembly an annual report for the preceding year listing each case of non compliance, notice of non compliance and where extensions were granted.
However, the Bill explicitly states that there shall not be debate in the Assembly on the conduct of a Judge.
