The PPPC’s budget 2014 does not elevate the performance of the judicial services sector

Apr 27, 2014 APNU Column, Features / Columnists

---

“Judiciaries serve and hold the Executive Branch accountable. They help the contract and the corporate system to work in a fair and impartial manner, providing a necessary element of predictability for investors. Judicial reforms should be, and are, a key component of poverty reduction and growth strategies, in an increasing number of countries around the world”
This quote was taken from the essay –Judiciaries, Growth and Poverty Reduction: Linkages and Lessons Learned– by Vinay Bhargava, former Director of International Affairs at the World Bank, 2005.
The National Budget 2014 allocates $111,655,000 to the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, $1,410,018,000 to the Supreme Court of Judicature and $ 288,401,000 to the Ministry of Legal Affairs. Totaled, these amount to $1,810,074,000 or 0.8% of the Budget.
Paltry sums are spent on infrastructure and equipment. A total of $11,300,000 is allotted to the Ministry of Legal Affairs for the rehabilitation of a driveway, purchase of vehicles, furniture and equipment. The Supreme Court will be allocated $216,270,000 to be spent on the construction of a Land Court, rehabilitation of courtrooms and payment of retention, purchase of a vehicle, completion and construction of Magistrates’ Courts and purchases of furniture and equipment. Courts with sewage seeping through the floors, courts that aren’t sound proof, courts with no robing rooms and inadequate seating will continue to be the norm. The Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions is allocated $5,000,000 for the purchase of furniture and equipment.
These allocations, in totality, have the collective effect of strangulating the sector and pegging back small gains achieved by the Justice Improvement Programme (referred to as the Modernization of the Justice Administration System Project or referred to as a component of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy). This saw US$25M pumped into the sector continuously since 2006.
The People’s Progressive Party Civic administration, if it were progressive, would have had another phase of the Justice Sector Reform Strategy in place for 2014, to commence as soon as the 2013 phase would have concluded. The improvement of the delivery of Justice to the Guyanese people must be a priority for any caring administration.
The Justice Improvement Programme must be an annual diet for the sector. With its absence the logical conclusion is that the budgetary design for the Judicial Sector for 2014 is palpably flawed in principle and in effect. It is clear therefore, that the PPPC administration has little interest in curing the ills plaguing the sector. There is a deafening silence on the following:
– Enhancing the quality of judicial decisions;
– Optimisation of the use of human material and financial resources;
– Protecting the young and vulnerable;
– Reducing the time it takes for victims to be compensated;
– Curbing repetition of criminality by offenders;
– Introducing IT and e-protocols throughout the sector;
– Introducing the Judicial Research Assistants Programme;
– Providing incentives for performance in the sector, and
– Focused financial investment and management, expansion and improving the quota of Attorneys and capacity-building within the Legal Aid Programme.
These are the things that A Partnership for National Unity would have spent additional dollars on to ensure that the system is robust and accessible.
LEGAL AID
We cannot speak of access to justice without mentioning legal aid. Legal Aid will receive a paltry $44,087,000 in 2014.  The Guyana Legal Aid Clinic was forced to reduce its complement of attorneys by two in 2013. The Clinic is the agency that was engineered to cater for the poor; but how can they cater for the poor when it is underfunded. Every year the Clinic gets less than it asks for.
The Clinic, in 2013, had a clientele of 376 persons of whom 205 were women and 171 were men in Region No. 2; 262 persons were advised and afforded representation in civil matters, similarly 60 received same in criminal matters. The Clinic, in Region No. 4, had a clientele of 1,985 persons of whom 1,325 were women and 660 men in 2013; 1,009 were advised and afforded representation in civil matters; similarly 82 received same in criminal matters.
The Clinic had a clientele of 65 persons of whom 41 were women and 24 were men in Region No. 5; 21 persons were advised and afforded representation in civil matters, similarly 2 received same in criminal matters. The Clinic had a clientele of 216 persons of whom 148 were women and 68 were men in Region No. 6; 62 persons were advised and afforded representation in civil matters similarly 9 received same in criminal matters.
The Clinic, between 1994 and 2014, saw a clientele of 27,909 persons of whom 19,599 were women and 8,310 were men. This shows that women benefit most from this service. The cases covered by the Clinic include Adoption, Custody and Access of minors, Division of Property, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Personal Injury to name a few. It’s our women that these services attract. An APNU administration would ensure larger subventions and a deeper partnership to ensure that the Legal Aid clinics country-wide keep their doors open to the poor and vulnerable.
A strong and effective justice system demands that judges are provided with adequate legal support staff. With the proliferation of new legislation and of modern litigation and the attention of the public to their rights and obligation, judges critically need the help of well qualified persons to assist in the delivery of services. In the same way that Senior Counsel in private chambers or the Director of Public Prosecutions utilize services of Junior Counsel, in like manner Judges Research Assistants are critical to the work of the Judges and Magistrates.
We cannot speak of an increase in the complement of Judges to reduce backlog without equipping them with the support staff they need to churn out decisions in a timely manner.
Budget 2014’s vision for the Justice Sector is primitive. It is crustacean. Laced with ad hoc policies and goals, it deceives the naked eye, but on closer inspection it is found wanting. This sector is too important to be toyed with and that’s exactly what this budget does. It emasculates its human resources and impregnates with shortcomings physical mechanisms that are in themselves primitive.
A good budget for the judicial services sector must be measured by one thing only and that is, does it substantially elevate the performance of the Judiciary? In 2014 the answer is no!

---

---