I agree with AG John Jeremie that there is a need for “a more sophisticated justice system …… for the delivery of swift justice” but this can be a dangerous political slogan. What we have to be careful about however is the erosion of the independence of the judiciary and the dangerous possibility of indirect political control of the administration of justice.
The issue of how this can best be achieved was raised during the tenure of the UNC AG Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj who locked horns with then CJ Michael De La Bastide. One of the issues at the heart of matter was the vexing question of who should be in charge of and control the budget for the administration of justice.
There are two competing principles at stake: there should be no public expenditure without accountability to Parliament and the need for complete and genuine independence of the judiciary.
No government wants a truly independent judiciary. (Or DPP, Commissioner of Police, Solicitor General, Integrity Commission for that matter). Political financiers and investors held secrets for men and women who, in their bid for power, made promises and accepted favours. In our political culture this cultivates and breeds political corruption.
A measure of indirect political control is always desirable to prevent prosecutions, (eg. Manning and LABIDCO), delay the inevitable by constant litigation (eg. Panday and the airport), “time” legal matters right, to suit the political needs (eg. Panday’s rape case on the eve of a general election), influence the outcome of sensitive cases involving supporters or financiers (allegations over Mc Nicholls land deal and secret meetings with AG) and have the option of political persecution via criminal/legal prosecution handy in case its needed (Dr. Keith Rowley and Sat Sharma).
Political control of the judiciary is a symptom of dictatorship. However sophisticated the machinery and mechanism for this control, it is anathema to the rule of law. Judicial independence is necessary to ensure that no man is above the law, that we are all equal before and in the eyes of the law and that justice is fairly and equitably administered.
That said, of equal importance is the point made by governments. The judiciary must be accountable for funds given to it. And yes, the pace of justice is slow and easy to manipulate. If the judiciary is not performing or misusing tax payers money, who will guard the guards? Ramesh had forcefully argued that the separation of powers principle had virtually transformed the judiciary into a sacred, untouchable cow supervised by and accountable to no one.
When I started practicing law, judges were rude and arrogant (some still are) and many, quite frankly didn’t work. Court finished at lunchtime as judges rushed off to the golf course in Petrotrin to relax. Endless adjournments were the order of the day as cases dragged on for over a decade. The backlog of unwritten judgments caused by such laziness and a lack of resources was scandalous.
There has been much progress in the last decade in the administration of justice. The publication of an annual report by the Chief Justice with statistics is a positive step. There are however, still no clear criteria or mechanism for evaluating individual judicial performance or identifying and addressing under performance. There is also no defined avenue for the making or resolution of genuine complaints against judges.
The answer to these problems however, lies in strong internal self-regulation and not control by the executive. The government can, if it wishes, ensure that provision is made in the new constitution for these sensitive matters.
Reinforcing the independence of the judiciary, strengthening the administration of justice in the context of public accountability, transparency and an efficient system of justice is a laudable objective.
What worries me is the fact that the Attorney General Jeremie and the executive (meaning any government in power) is responsible for the very inefficient system they are now seeking to condemn. It is the government that has consistently not made the administration of justice a legislative or expenditure priority.
It is the government for example (not the CJ) that has to table legislation for and implement the abolition of preliminary inquiries, a system of plea bargaining, an effective witness protection programme, finance the creation of the much-needed DNA Lab, computerize police stations and the licensing office, renovate and build new Magistrates Courts, hire more judges and magistrates, pump money into the Forensics Science Centre and improve the salaries for judicial officers to make this a viable career option.
Slashing the budget for the administration of justice in favour of ridiculous unnecessary mega projects is a hallmark of PNM squander mania. When the price of oil and gas was high and money was no problem, the construction of new magistrates’ courts and hiring of more judges and magistrates was not a priority. If the administration of justice was not a priority at a time of plenty, do you really expect it to be high on the government agenda during a recession and crime?
By Anand Ramlogan