Dear Editor,
The proposed electronic filing system mentioned at the opening of the legal year is an excellent idea provided that it improves access to justice, is well-designed, user friendly for lawyers and litigants in person, and compatible with the system in the Caribbean Court of Justice for appeals. However, there are far deeper problems in the justice system that ought to be addressed as a matter of priority. Perhaps the most serious is that Guyana has an acting Chancellor and an acting Chief Justice, and this has been going for many years. This is inconsistent with the rule of law. Security of tenure is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for an independent judiciary. Judges must have (and must be seen to have) the freedom to give judgements against the executive branch of government without being afraid that they will be dismissed, demoted or blocked in their careers.
Article 127(1) of the Constitution says that the Chancellor and the Chief Justice shall each be appointed by the President, after obtaining the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition. This process belongs in the dustbin of history. It clearly does not work. It is incompatible with the rule of law to allow political involvement in the appointment of any judge but especially the two most senior judges in the country. It is unfair to the current incumbents. And it is contrary to the established Common-wealth (Latimer House) Principles which state that: ‘The appointment process, whether or not involving an appropriately constituted and representative judicial services commission, should be designed to guarantee the quality and independence of mind of those selected for appointment at all levels of the judiciary… Judicial appointments to all levels of the judiciary should be made on merit with appropriate provision for the progressive removal of gender imbalance and of other historic factors of discrimination.’
We need to find a way forward for the sake of our country. We can no longer rely on the politicians. We should be able to rely on the legal profession to put justice and the rule of law above party loyalty. The positions of Chancellor and Chief Justice should be advertised across the Caribbean and indeed the entire Commonwealth. The criteria should include relevant experience, sound legal judgement (i.e. a good record of being upheld on appeal), the ability to deliver written judgements swiftly, and a commitment to modern standards of justice including an end to archaic practices and to instances of discourteous behaviour by bench and bar. A temporary committee should be set up, on a proper basis, to select the best candidate for the post of Chancellor and that of Chief Justice. The committee must be independent of government and opposition and their supporters. Its members should be people with integrity with the necessary skills and intelligence to select the best candidate for each position. Obviously if the current incumbents are the best they will be selected. Equally obviously, if they are not the best, they should not be selected.
The committee should then request the President and Leader of the Opposition to agree and appoint the two candidates who have been selected as the best for the two judicial offices. This ought to reduce the scope for playing silly party politics to the detriment of the judiciary, the system of justice and the dignity of the Guyanese people. We would then expect the newly appointed Chan-cellor and Chief Justice to demand the resources (including competent additional judges, staff, legal researchers, increased remuneration etc.) necessary to deliver justice. After all, justice is not something to be doled out by the executive. Justice is the bedrock of freedom. Across the globe and throughout history, an independent and well-functioning judiciary has been the most critical element in the fight against arbitrary power and autocratic government.
Sincerely,
Melinda Janki LL.B, BCL
(Oxon), LL.M
Attorney-at-Law
