Dear Editor,
I am dismayed and disillusioned over three recent incidents involving the judiciary which have brought the administration of justice into disrepute. The first incident involves the Attorney General of Guyana acting as counsel on behalf of the Finance Minister of Guyana who was involved in a motor vehicle accident over the weekend. In doing so, the Attorney General has regrettably placed himself in a very precarious position for a number of reasons. Throughout the world and in the Caribbean, individuals who are appointed to senior public positions are expected to act in both their public and private capacity in a manner which will not undermine the office they hold and which will maintain public confidence in both the office and the office holder.
The Attorney General is the ultimate Minister of Justice. He proclaims himself the legal adviser to the President. In his capacity as a member of cabinet, while in Guyana it may or may not be required of him to resign from private practice upon being appointed as a cabinet minister, it is nevertheless the astute thing to do in order that he not place himself in a conflict of interest position and bring his office in disrepute. This is applicable to all public officials, moreso to ministers and those exercising judicial functions.
I am still unable to fathom the picture of two ordinary citizens, sitting in front of the Attorney General and negotiating with the Attorney General for compensation of yet to be established damages which they may or may not have suffered when a vehicle driven by the Minister of Finance had an accident with their vehicle. What is wrong with this picture you may ask? Well the answer is just about everything. There is there is a huge power imbalance. Not fully aware of their rights and not having the opportunity to fully determine the medical nature of their immediate and long-term injuries, these ordinary citizens were placed in the uncomfortable situation where it is easy to say to oneself, I am dealing with big powerful influential men, let me settle or face who knows what.
Guyana has no shortage of competent and capable lawyers. Instead of exercising proper judgement and decline a request to represent the Minister of Finance, the Attorney General not only accepted the retainer (no money needs to change hands), and proceeded to meet with the injured parties. While it is a misuse of his public office, it also points to a systematic Guyanese culture of misuse of state resources. It also sends the wrong message to the bureaucracy and the public that it is okay to misuse state resources. Ordinary Guyanese may be thinking if it is okay for the AG to misuse his office, why not every other individual. The Attorney General ought to have exercised better judgement and led by example.
With respect to the Minister of Finance, it is hoped that the Guyana Police Force will do its job and thoroughly investigate the accident. If it turns out that the Minister committed no wrongdoing, then so be it. On the other hand, if the police investigation points to the Finance Minister being inebriated and driving under the influence, or was driving carelessly or recklessly, then the appropriate charges ought to be instituted. In Guyana, with the exception of the President who is cloaked with legal impunity, no one is above the law, including the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance.
The second incident has to do with the reported actions of Magistrate Geeta Chandan. Given the allegations of assault made against her by her former maid, it is simply unacceptable for her to continue sitting as a magistrate. The proper thing to do is to place her on paid leave pending a thorough investigation of the allegations by both the police and the appropriate statutory body that has jurisdiction to investigate complaints against a member of her level of the judiciary. Her role as a member of the judiciary dictates no less, failing which, the administration of justice will definitely be brought into disrepute. While we can sympathize with the Magistrate for what was done to her child, nevertheless, the magistrate has the obligation to act in a manner that would not have the effect of bringing the administration of justice in disrepute.
The actions of the sentencing magistrate also can place the administration of justice in disrepute. The hastiness and nature of the entire process will bring the sentencing magistrate under a perception of bias because the mother of the victim is also a sitting magistrate. Someone posed the question in the press asking what would have happened if this same situation had occurred in North America. I could advise that it is likely that both the maid and the parents would have been charged and due process would have been followed. The magistrate would have been asked to resign or have been placed on paid leave, the local law society tasked with the legal authority to discipline its members would have commenced its own investigation against the lawyer father, and the maid would have been released on bail with conditions. The maid would have also had numerous court appearances where she would have received full written disclosure of the particulars of charge, she would have had several opportunities to obtain legal representation and eventually she would have had her trial. All of this is called due process and not breaching either the constitutional rights or the natural justice rights of the accused maid. I don’t believe any member of the judiciary in North America would have violated the maid’s due process and audi alteram partem rights as the sentencing magistrate did.
Finally, I turn to the matter involving the Mr Sukul of the Guyana Court of Appeal. It is indeed laudable that the Judicial Service Commission has looked far and wide to bring Guyanese talents to the judiciary. However, removing a High Court justice or a judge of the Court of Appeal is an extremely serious matter, and due process has to be followed. In certain jurisdictions it will take a sitting of parliament to remove a judge from office. The committee or commission of inquiry tasked with investigating the complaints against the judge will hold hearings and present its findings to the government, which will then make a determination whether the judge should be removed from office. If the judge refuses to vacate office, in Canada for example, it will take a combined sitting of both the House of Commons and the Senate to remove the judge. In Guyana all it took was a demand from the Chancellor for Mr Sukul to resign and resign he did.
Irrespective of what transpired in England, the Judge should have been placed on leave, pending an investigation into the complaints against him. The Judge could have made the decision to resign, quite independently of the request from the Chancellor. It is a sad day for the administration of justice when someone with the stature of a judge of the Court of Appeal of Guyana was denied his audi alteram partem rights. Such denial can and does bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
In conclusion, none of the above comments ought to be considered as an attack on anyone, including the Attorney General, the Minister of Finance, Magistrate Chandan or the Chancellor. I am not familiar with any of these public personalities. However, I read the newspapers every single day and whether you agree or disagree with the position taken by these public officials, they are all hard-working individuals and I commend all of them for their yeoman public service.
Yours faithfully,
Oudit Rai
