Latest update May 13th, 2026 12:35 AM
Jun 06, 2008 Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
I will let Mr. Terrence Duncan provide a direct response to Mr. Kwame McCoy’s letter, “Criticisms of the judiciary are the cross-checks and balance of power”, (Kaieteur News, June 4), but there is a salient point in Mr. McCoy’s letter that targeted the judiciary, which can also be used to target the executive branch of Government.
Mr. McCoy wrote, “Though the judiciary is an independent arm of the state, it has to be accountable to explain, and justify, and open up areas in question to public dialogue and scrutiny. This is the kind of accountability that will assist transparency and scrutiny by other branches of the state and the public.”
Not really a mouthful, but can Mr. McCoy say with a straight face and clear conscience that the executive branch has been “accountable to explain, and justify, and open up areas in question to public dialogue and scrutiny”? Can he also vouch for the executive branch’s veracity as being engaged in “the kind of accountability that will assist transparency and scrutiny by other branches of the state and the public”?
Notice, Mr. Editor, the parenthesized words are his own I reused in applying the same demands to the executive branch, because he may well be making demands of the judicial branch that are not being met by the executive branch.
For example, he mentioned “the public”, but can he say if the Government truly is accountable to and transparent with the “public”?
Currently, the public waits for Government press releases and conferences, but unless there is a Freedom of Information Law enforced by the judiciary, how can the public know with great certainty whether what the Government is saying is true unless the public has equal access to the same information as Government?
He used the word “scrutiny” but did not cite a specific example in which the judiciary’s rulings or decisions deserve that level of scrutiny worthy of being written or talked about. He also used the words “accountability” and “transparency” in relation to the judiciary, and again he offered no specific examples where the judiciary came up short in both or either area. To me he simply engaged in rhetorical ramblings to protect and project the image of a regime that is being battered by its own missteps and misspeaks.
I want to challenge Mr. McCoy to let us expand our focus to include the executive branch. Let us talk about the need for accountability, transparency and objective scrutiny of the Bharrat Jagdeo Administration.
For example, when the President decided to tap taxpayers’ funds for a loan to give to the owner to complete his hotel construction last year, were Parliament, the media and the public privy to documents detailing the loan arrangement?
Can Mr. McCoy produce for Parliament, the media and the public any and all dated letters exchanged between the President and that person showing a request for and approval of the loan?
Can Mr. McCoy produce for Parliament, the media and the public any and all documents with a breakdown of construction estimates? Enough for now!
Mr. McCoy needs to be told that while it may be okay for the executive branch to criticise certain decisions/rulings by the judicial branch, within the framework of accountability, transparency and scrutiny, the executive branch cannot let its open criticisms be seen by the public as efforts to exert undue influence and control over the judiciary. This will give the impression that the executive wants a judiciary loyal to its partisan agenda.
With the ruling party having a parliamentary majority, it is a recipe for an emerging dictatorship if the judiciary is then firmly controlled by the executive branch.
So far, the judiciary, under Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang, is proving to be the executive branch’s Achilles heel! As well it should be, if it is to avoid becoming a mere political pawn. Been there, done that, and moving on.
Emile Mervin
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.