Deafening silence over disbursements for backlog cases

May 28, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
It is amazing that after this revelation, that there is such a deafening silence over such a major disbursement to the Chancellor and others.
The receipt of almost $21,000,000 out of a total of $40,000,000 for the disposal of backlog cases does indicate the monetary reward is a powerful motivation. However, it does also bring into question the bona fides of the Acting Chancellor in the performance of his duties.
The question must be asked why the Acting Chancellor did not see it fit to dispose of the cases he disposed of while he served as Chief Justice for many years.

With payment of $15,000 per case, the Acting Chancellor was able to single-handedly dispose of some 1,400 cases. The Acting Chancellor should be asked to repeat his performance within the time frame that he disposed of the 1,400 cases. With a judicial performer like the Acting Chancellor, given the years that the Acting Chancellor served as Chief Justice, there ought to have been no backlog at the time the Acting Chancellor was elevated from the post of Chief Justice.

But there is an explanation proffered for this seemingly superb performance by the Acting Chancellor. It is said that a large amount of the cases disposed of by the Acting Chancellor were cases, which were already abandoned and legally dead. If so, how could cases already abandoned and legally dead attract a payment of $15,000 per case for disposal? This aspect of the matter, while it gives some explanation for the seemingly superb performance by the Acting Chancellor, bring into question whether the Acting Chancellor did not improperly receive many millions of dollars to which he was not entitled. It is interesting to have ascertained how many abandoned and legally dead cases were the subject matter of the receipt of $15,000 per case by the Acting Chancellor.

How could cases, which were abandoned and legally dead be even considered let alone categorized as backlog cases? How can cases, which were abandoned and legally dead be pending hearing by the judiciary? It does appear that cases, which were abandoned and legally dead cannot be the subject matter of any hearing and therefore cannot be within the category of “backlog cases”.

It appears that the Acting Chancellor mounted the High Court Bench and dealt with backlog cases after Justice William Ramlal declared that he had no jurisdiction to perform duties as a High Court Judge or as Chief Justice. The Acting Chancellor’s public explanation for the breach of Justice Ramlal’s order is that he had no recollection of having been served with a copy of the Order of Justice Ramlal that he became aware of the judge’s decision, only from media reports. However, even if the Acting Chancellor was not served with a copy of Justice Ramlal’s Order, it does appear that he mounted the High Court bench and continued to dispose of backlog cases after President Jagdeo had already sworn in Court of Appeal Justice Chang as Acting Chief Justice. Surely, he must have been present and aware that Justice Chang was sworn in as Acing Chief Justice.

The explanation of the Acting Chancellor for his breach of Justice Ramlal’s Order has an extremely hollow ring. The question must be asked, “Did the Acting Chancellor sacrifice principle to profit?” The question must be asked whether the Acting Chancellor was seeking to clear the advance payments which he allegedly received for the disposal of such cases.
How could the Acting Chancellor have known in advance what amount of cases he could have disposed of in order to take advance payments?

The embattled Registrar of the Supreme Court stated that she did not sign or approve of any of the vouchers for payment to the Acting Chancellor?
Yet, the Acting Chancellor in his press statement stated that: “every payment made to him was approved by the Registrar after submission of the completed list of Cases.”
If the Registrar did not sign or approve of the payments to the Acting Chancellor, it is interesting to know not merely who did so, but on whose instructions?

This whole episode of the payment of public funds for abandoned and legally dead cases, reeks to the high heavens and the fact that the Acting Chancellor himself features so qualitatively and quantitatively in it brings into question his continuing to hold high judicial office, without the benefit of an impartial investigation or inquiry by persons who enjoy public confidence to conduct such an investigation and inquiry.

Let there be no mistake about it – such an inquiry or investigation is necessary since public confidence in the country’s highest judicial officer has been severely affected.
After all, the allegations are serious and the public explanations by the Acting Chancellor are not convincing, both in terms of truth and reasonableness.
N. Softleigh

---

---