|
Sunday, November 13th 2005
The government has proposed amendments to the laws to relieve the Chief Justice of a number of duties, including the allocation of all court business, in what some see as a move that will weaken the office and could lead to administrative problems.
The High Court (Amendment) Bill 2005 which was tabled on Thursday would, if passed, remove a number of the administrative duties from the Chief Justice in whom they have been long vested and give them to the Chancellor.
Stabroek News was unable to get a comment from Attorney General Doodnauth Singh (in whose name the bill was tabled) on the reasons behind it, and already there is speculation as to the government's motives, particularly in the light of the current impasse on the Chancellor's appointment.
The bill seeks to confer the powers vested in the Chief Justice under Sections 66, 76 and 77 of the High Court Act on the Chancellor. According to the bill's explanatory memorandum, these powers are to determine the distribution of the business before the court; to assign any judicial duty to any judge; to direct the sitting of the full court in more than one division; and to assign a third judge to sit on a hearing by the full court on appeal, where the Chancellor thinks there are any special grounds that the full court should be composed of three judges.
The Guyana Bar Association (GBA) council will be meeting on Tuesday to come up with its official position on the matter, GBA President Joseph Harmon said yesterday. He said he only learnt of the bill when a member of parliament brought it to his attention on Friday, the day after it was tabled in the House and there was no opportunity for members to make their positions clear. His initial reaction to the bill, however, was to see it as an attempt to consolidate in the hands of one person what is really the powers of two people.
But former Bar President and MP Khemraj Ramjattan did not mince words on the amendment, which he said ought to be withdrawn. He saw it as "a ruthless attempt to take away the powers of the Chief Justice and to give it to someone else who the government feels comfortable with." More than that, he also thought the amendment would impinge on the constitution, which sets out certain duties for both the Chief Justice and the Chancellor. Ramjattan said "to denude... the Chief Justice's powers is literally to make the Chief Justice a puisne judge in effect." He went further to say that the bill would in essence "abolish" the office of the Chief Justice. "What is a Chief Justice if not the person who allocates the matters...?" he asked rhetorically.
Ramjattan said his initial feelings on the bill were that it was improperly motivated and in some respects unconstitutional. He said "it smacks of interference with the independence of the judiciary," and as both lawyer and MP he hoped that all parliamentarians would adhere to the doctrine of separation of powers "and not allow partisan party politics to pass this bill."
Another attorney and MP, Basil Williams, also thought the amendment would reduce the Chief Justice's post to nothing more than a ceremonial title, and could be a move towards doing away with the office. "What is to happen to the office of the Chief Justice? It becomes impotent," he noted, while also taking the view that holders of the post would in essence be just regular judges.
Also, having considered the implications of the proposed amendment he did not see how it would serve the already overburdened judiciary by placing the entire administrative workload on the shoulders of just one office holder. "It doesn't make sense to me. Right now, with the Chief Justice alone, we have had a lot of problems and people are dissatisfied with the way things are and now you will take all the administrative power to one office?" he said.
Like Ramjattan, Williams also felt that the amendment was not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the constitution given the role envisaged by its drafters.
Williams noted too that the amendment had implications for the current consultations between the President and the Opposition Leader for the appointment of a Chancellor and Chief Justice. In this regard, he said, the amendment would amount to "a shifting the goalposts" during the talks. Indeed, the tabling of the bill comes as the consultations between President Bharrat Jagdeo and Opposi-tion Leader Robert Corbin remain open after more than six months. Since their first meeting Jagdeo has publicly stated that Chief Justice Carl Singh is his candidate to fill the Chancellor's vacancy but he has not scheduled a follow-up meeting with Corbin, saying that a committee is searching for an ideal Chief Justice candidate. Justice Claudette Singh, who was passed over for the post of Chief Justice the last time it fell vacant, has been named among the leading candidates for it now. Observers suspect that the amendment is intended to dilute the powers of the Chief Justice in the event that Chief Justice Carl Singh is appointed Chancellor, along with a Chief Justice that the government does not look favourably on.
Under the revised constitution, neither of the appointments can be made unless the Opposition Leader agrees.
|
