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.
