Insufficient judges and support staff
Although mentioned at least six times in the Constitution of Guyana, the term ‘the rule of law’ is not defined. Among the identified principles of the Rule of Law is Accessible and Impartial Justice, i.e., that justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives who are accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve. Such independence is, guaranteed under Article 122A (1) of the Constitution mandating that “courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their functions independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of direction and control.”
To discharge those functions effectively and efficiently requires that the Courts be properly equipped. Led by its Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, the Executive will do well to take notice, and address as a matter of urgency, the challenges faced by the Judiciary such an insufficient number of judges and the lack of proper infrastructure, including the need for adequate support staff.
We live in a litigious society with a high volume of cases being filed daily, in which violations of the Constitution and the law take place as a matter of course. There are currently sixteen judges – three in the Court of Appeal and thirteen in the High Court. An immediate and obvious problem is that three judges – the Chancellor and two Justices of Appeal – are required to form a quorum for the court to sit. This means that the three Court of Appeal Judges – have to theoretically sit in every appeal, unless judges are brought up from the High Court to act, itself a disruptive practice.
The High Court currently has only thirteen Justices, including the Chief Justice who sits at its apex, and who carries an enormous number of administrative tasks, even as she functions as the de facto head of the Constitutional Court. Excluding the already burdened Chief Justice, that leaves the High Court with twelve Justices assigned as follows: Berbice (2); Essequibo (1); Family Court (2); Commercial Court (3); and Georgetown Criminal Court (2-3). The specialised courts such as Commercial, Family and Criminal Court mean that fewer judges are available to tackle the volume of other civil matters which do not fall within the specialised courts.
Currently, there is a backlog of criminal cases, due in part to only two or three criminal judges being available to hear jury trials at each Court Session. The result is that the list of criminal cases will extend to several assizes, taking a longer time to dispense justice, another right under our Constitution.
It is easy for the citizen to rail against our Courts but perhaps some comparison across the water may offer perspective. Jamaica has forty High Court judges, eight Masters and twelve judges in their Court of Appeal. Jamaica also has Parish Court judges.
Trinidad’s Judiciary comprises seventy-five Justices with sixteen in the Court of Appeal, thirty-two in the High Court and twenty-seven in the Masters Court. Masters of the High Court in Trinidad enjoy similar jurisdiction to High Court Judges sitting in Chambers except for matters where statute expressly limits their jurisdiction such as the exercise of powers to imprison or grant interlocutory injunctions.
But it is more than that. Judges should not have to engage in routine administrative and research functions but should be supported by quality, qualified Clerks to do research and prepare drafts, a confidential secretary and an assistant to carry out all administrative functions, as well as a state assigned driver. Every judge in every Caribbean country has a policeman assigned to them for driving and protection. Not so in Guyana.
A further stain on our society is what now seems to be an accepted affair – an acting Chancellor and an Acting Chief Justice, a disgrace that spans administrations. No less a person than the immediate past President of the CCJ, Sir Dennis Byron bluntly stated that this situation has moved well beyond what ought to be acceptable in a modern democracy. Having acted in these positions, the incumbents have a right to be appointed. The Society and the Bar Association must no longer take this for granted and must act in this matter.
Adding to this, is the absence of the constitutionally mandated Judicial Service Commission. Surely, we cannot be serious about the Rule of Law and the Constitution when we are so cavalier about our Courts. The number of judges must be significantly increased, the acting appointment addressed and the system of the administration of justice streamlined.
