Justice Sukul Debacle… JSC never approached House to consult on appointments

Feb 20, 2014 News

…ready, willing and able to do its duty when required-Trotman

This past week, Attorney-at-Law, Christopher Ram, in chiding the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the nomination of now disbarred, Appellate Court Judge, Rabi Sukul, noted that there should have been consultations with the National Assembly, as it relates to specific appointments on the Commission.

Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman

Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman yesterday announced that ever since the requirement was made into law, “there has been no request made of the National Assembly to identify candidates for the Judicial Service Commission.”
Ram, in his chrisram.net outlet, wrote that the Constitution provides for the President to appoint judges, other than the Chancellor and the Chief Justice, on the advice of the JSC.
It provides for the JSC to comprise not less than five and not more than six persons made up of three ex officio members – the Chancellor as Chairman, the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission – and not less than two, or more than three persons appointed by the President.
Of the appointed members, one must either hold or had held the position of a judge and is appointed after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, while the other one or two must be non-practising attorneys-at-law, chosen by the National Assembly after consultation with legal professional bodies.
Ram charged further that the Speaker of the House which has always been an attorney-at-law, seemed never to have been aware of his duty to consult and make recommendations to the President.
“This reflects poorly not only on Mr. Raphael Trotman, the Speaker of the National Assembly but also on the Chancellor (ag.) Honourable Carl Singh, CCH as the JSC’s chairman.”
Trotman yesterday responded to Ram and said that though taken to be well-intentioned, his statement raised some issues that require clarification.
He firstly noted that it is to be stated and understood that there is no involvement of the Speaker of the National Assembly in the process of making the appointments.
He noted that the Constitution, at Article 198 (b), requires the National Assembly to “meaningfully” consult bodies that appear to represent Attorneys-at-Law and signify its choice to the President.
Once the process is completed, the Clerk of the National Assembly communicates the decisions of the National Assembly to His Excellency, the President.
Trotman said that the usual manner in which the National Assembly makes recommendations of this nature is that it responds when requests are made of it by the appropriate body, on occasions when vacancies arise.
Since the introduction of Article 119C, as part of the constitutional reforms of 2001, “there has been no request made of the National Assembly to identify candidates for the JSC; nevertheless the National Assembly is ready, willing and able to do its duty when required.”
He explained that the process of consultations and nominations is done by the Committee on Appointments of the National Assembly.
This Committee is a bi-partisan Standing Committee that is established by Article 119C of the Constitution and Standing Order 84, and has a specific responsibility for: “…initiating or otherwise taking such actions or addressing such matters as may be entrusted to the Committee by the National Assembly in respect of functions required to be discharged by the National Assembly under the Constitution in relation to the appointment of a member for a Committee established under the Constitution.”
The Committee reports to the National Assembly, and the National Assembly, once satisfied, adopts the report of the Committee. At present, the Committee is working assiduously to fulfill its mandate of identifying the members of the various constitutional Commissions that have requested that these be identified.