Dear Editor,
I write in reference to a letter written by Mr Prem Persaud which appeared in our daily newspapers last week (‘When convicted of a breach of insurance the penalty is imprisonment,’ SN May 16). One newspaper even dealt with the subject in their front page by referring to parts of the letter, and also carried comments from Magistrate Fazil Azeez (‘Retired judge flays decision on unlicensed driver,’ SN May 15). The thrust of the letter by Mr Prem Persaud was to criticize the sentence of the magistrate in a traffic matter and call upon the traffic police officers to be more professional.

Mr Persaud in criticizing the magistrate said, “the order of the magistrate reprimanding and discharging the defendant for the offence of breach of insurance reflects the insensitivity of the magistrate to that particular offence, his lack of knowledge of what the penalty should be or whatever consideration impelled him so to do.”

I am not in this letter going into whether Mr Persaud was justified in his criticism and/or whether the magistrate was right and/or acted within his discretionary power in the sentence that was imposed.

I do believe and have reasonable grounds for so doing that the Prem Persaud who is the author of the letter is former Court of Appeal Judge Mr Prem Persaud. Mr Prem had a distinguished career in the judiciary and has been serving as a member of the Judicial Service Commission for over fifteen years.
The Judicial Service Commission is the constitutional body responsible for the appointment, promotion, discharging, discipline and all matters relating to any complaints as regards the conduct and or otherwise of magistrates, judges and other designated public officers.

Thus it is my humble view that Mr Prem Persaud was wrong to publicly admonish the magistrate for what he considered to be “lack of knowledge” and to continue the dialogue by asking the magistrate to respond to certain questions.

Mr Prem Persaud, cannot in future as a member of the Judicial Service Commission, sit in any matter relating to the magistrate as he has shown what may now be perceived to be a “bias” and the rules of natural justice would have to be applied. Whenever any person is in a position as a member of the Judicial Service Commission then any criticism and or reservation must not be made publicly. Such criticism if made publicly would tend to bring disrespect and ridicule to a magistrate and I do not believe that this is what Mr Prem Persaud intended.

What Mr Persaud should have done was to inform the Chancellor of the Judiciary of his concerns and let the Chancellor, who is the functional superior of the magistrate, raise the matter with the magistrate so that there could be clarity.

The Judicial Service Commission, as constituted, has over the years been weak and as such the government has had recently to pass the law where judges now have to give their decisions within one hundred and twenty days.

The Judicial Service Com-mission has allowed judges to retire and leave dozens of matters incomplete and these judges have been allowed to still have all their benefits. This must not be allowed to happen.
Yours faithfully,
K A Juman-Yassin