Dear Editor,
The balance of powers in our Westminster model of state control creates a complementary tension among the executive/government, parliament, and the judiciary. Of the three, only members of the judiciary require professional and academic qualifications to be eligible for appointment. The judiciary applies the law, both common law and those passed by parliament, for the protection and punishment of members of the public. It is the judiciary which invalidates laws passed by parliament which are unconstitutional, and protects members of the public from excesses of power by the executive. When a man commits a crime, a judge imposes a punishment. When the police burned the teen, a judge awarded the teen compensation. When a buyer does not pay his debt, a judge compels payment. There is no more important service in a society than that provided by the judiciary.
So it threatens the very fabric of society if the judiciary is or is perceived to be ineffective. The executive would be able to seize private property without restraint. The criminal would operate unimpeded, and the debtor would laugh at his creditor without fear.
In Guyana, a civil case can take ten years from its commencement before it even comes up for trial. An appeal can take another six or seven years. Litigants endure. Some give up. Some die before they get satisfaction. Business is hurt. Banks complain. Commercial transactions, the lifeblood of a financial system, are made in this legal vacuum; the principals hold their breath.
In criminal cases, an accused person on remand awaiting trial to determine his guilt (bearing in mind the presumption of innocence) can wait years before his trial. Remember Benschop’s experience; the entire country should be ashamed of his treatment at the hands of the authorities. Years in remand awaiting trial on flimsy charges.
In 2010, Justice George sat in criminal sessions. She saw that something was wrong, and asked questions. As at that date, there were 132 inmates in Georgetown prison awaiting trial in High Court. Some had been incarcerated for as long as seven years. There were two judges assigned to the criminal sessions; each would probably conclude three or four trials for the session.
The judge directed that prisoners awaiting trial at the Georgetown Prisons be taken to the High Court for gaol delivery, then inquired in respect of each and orders made fixing a deadline when they should be tried. She recognized that the system had failed these people, regardless of their guilt or innocence. Incredibly, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who had slept safely and comfortably in her own bed in her own house the night before, had the stomach to challenge the judge’s orders, protesting that her office could not cope with that many cases, and that the judge had usurped the functions of her office. Apparently she thought it preferable to have the remand prisoners continue to sleep in gaol, rather than to address the deficiencies in the system of which she was custodian.
There is a perception that the judiciary is not productive. The fact is that the complement of judges is the same now as thirty years ago, but litigation has tripled. There can be only one result. Remand inmates will continue to languish. Criminal trials will take years to come to trial. Civil claims will remain unheard and unsatisfied. Our society will continue to deteriorate.
There are rumours of corruption at the administrative level. It is rumoured that if you want a matter to disappear from the court records, it can be done. If you want a matter to come to trial quickly, it can be done. Such occurrences have indeed happened. Perhaps documents are lost as a result of poor record management. It is possible. Freddie Kissoon telephoned me a few years ago. He had been sued for libel, and the case had come up for trial in less than one year, when other matters which had commenced long before his case (some of them seven and eight years before) continued to languish. Freddie wanted to know how this was possible. Perhaps it was the luck of the draw. It is possible.
Four years ago, a building was erected to house a family court at enormous cost to taxpayers. There still is no family court judge appointed or any infrastructure prepared. A dozen years ago, a Commercial Court was created. It is designed for two judges; only one judge has been appointed and presides in that court. In the Court of Appeal, where there has been a vacancy for years, only one new appointment was made, that done in shadowy circumstances and ending in embarrassment when the appointee hurriedly rushed to England to challenge his disbarment in that country.
I hope that the parties contending for national elections will provide some answers:
(1) Is the administration of justice in Guyana satisfactory? Are cases heard expeditiously and judgments effectively delivered and enforced? Are appeals managed promptly? Is there confidence in the public of the fair, unbiased, expeditious and incorruptible delivery of justice in Guyana?
(2) What problems have the contestants identified which face the judiciary and administrative support in the delivery of justice? What measures have been taken to improve the delivery of justice in Guyana in both criminal and civil arenas over the last ten years?
(3) Have those measures been effective, so that there have been tangible improvements in the justice system? If they have not been effective, what new ideas do the political contenders have to improve a dire situation?
Yours faithfully,
Timothy M Jonas
