Independence of the Judiciary… Criticisms of the judiciary are not attacks on judges—APNU spokesman

Sep 07, 2014 News

---

Greenidge says, “If the Court believes that I have overstepped my rights, they may take action directly. They don’t need professional advice or political prompting from the PPP. Well, maybe they do.”

The issue of whether the judiciary is being manipulated to usurp the powers of the National Assembly is certainly stirring tensions in some political camps.

A Partnership for National Unity’s financial spokesman, Carl Greenidge, has been very vocal in his criticisms of the court and how it is being used by the Executive against the National Assembly when the latter makes a decision that is not politically convenient.

But Government’s use of the court in this regard is having a domino effect. Greenidge said that while the government may be flexing its muscles, it is undermining the independence of the courts and by extension, eroding the separation of powers.

Greenidge said that Guyana has ended up with a judiciary that seems “keen to intervene at the behest of the Executive and handing out decisions that are damaging and inconsistent with the Constitution.”

But Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, described Greenidge’s comments as an unwarranted attack on the judiciary and as such, he will certainly explore all avenues to determine how the Parliamentarian can be sanctioned legally.

But the APNU Parliamentarian doesn’t appear to be disturbed by the AG’s comments. In fact, he went further to state that “if the court believes that I have overstepped my rights, they may take action directly. They don’t need professional advice or political prompting from the PPP. Well, maybe they do.”

Greenidge said that his comments were directed to the Cabinet for trying to undermine the legislature and the Judiciary. “He (Nandlall) missed the point. It was about Nandlall himself pursuing a policy of using the judiciary to usurp the functions of the legislature. The Speaker of the House, Raphael Trotman had also spoken to this.”

Trotman had said that the House has a right and a duty to look into any matter where it feels that a member has brought it into disrepute or has disrespected its decisions or otherwise. “This has to do with whether or not the rules of Parliament and the expectations of a member have been violated.

“I think the courts now are seeing things in a different way and it feels that it has the right to get involved and from time to time interfere. It is not something I am happy about. But being a lawyer, I believe in the rule of law. However, I feel the courts should be used especially in a situation like ours where you are literally in unchartered waters, constitutionally and otherwise.”
But I think it is being used to take a side in an argument and that is my dilemma. The National Assembly needs the advice and opinion of the court and it should do that and refrain from giving instructions to the Parliament,” Trotman asserted.

Nandlall had said that Greenidge’s attacks were “distasteful, and were clearly intended to bring our judges into disrepute and intimidate them” but the APNU Parliamentarian said that Nandlall is not in a good position to lecture a Member of Parliament on taste and behaviour.

The AG had also stated, “Greenidge is unaware that in civilized societies, a person who is aggrieved by a decision of a judge is free to challenge that decision by invoking the relevant legal procedure rather than ‘cuss out’ the judge in the newspapers, attributing to that judge, nefarious motives and humiliating and intimidating him publicly.”

However, the APNU politician made the point that “rape victims have a right to lay charges against their tormentors. What proportion of such cases end in prosecutions and what proportion of rape victims turn to the courts?

“The letter cited by Chartered Accountant Chris Ram explains why and the disgraceful backlog of cases is one point to start with.”

Greenidge highlighted a particular section of Ram’s letter which spoke to “the apparent growing impotence of the state to secure High Court convictions in serious criminal matters” and “the long acknowledged aversion to have indictable trials for serious firearm and narcotic offences.”

Nonetheless, Nandlall said, “Not only must it be condemned in the strongest possible manner but the relevant legal process ought to be activated, so that appropriate sanctions can be imposed to protect our judiciary from such and similar scurrilous attacks, if not, our judges will not be able to rule fearlessly and in accordance with law.”

In light of this “threat”, Greenidge said that he does not see anything wrong with his criticism of the judiciary. The politician then made reference to an extract from some notes on Australia on the value of Parliamentary and general criticism of the practice and decisions of the Courts.

“Valid criticism of the courts’ legal reasoning ensures that the Judiciary maintains a high standard of impartial decision making. As John Doyle, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Australia, pointed out, ‘fair comment on what courts do is protected, even if it is both inaccurate and defamatory…”

Greenidge said that Nandlall may not have read or given much consideration to the complaints and comments of Rex McKay but urged him to look at the contribution of Mr Oudit Rai B.A., M.A., LL.B, a former Deputy Judge, last March.

The Deputy Judge had said, “I am dismayed and disillusioned over three recent incidents involving the judiciary which have brought the administration of justice into disrepute.  The first incident involves the learned Attorney General of Guyana acting as counsel on behalf of the Finance Minister of Guyana who was involved in a motor vehicle accident over the weekend.

“In doing so; the Attorney General has regrettably placed himself in a very precarious position for a number of reasons. Throughout the world and in the Caribbean, individuals who are appointed to senior public positions are expected to act in both their public and private capacity in a manner which will not undermine the office they hold and which will maintain public confidence in both the office and the office holder.

“The learned Attorney General is the ultimate Minister of Justice. He proclaims to be the legal adviser to the President.
In his capacity as a member of Cabinet, while in Guyana it may or may not be required of him to resign from private practice upon being appointed as a Cabinet Minister, it is nevertheless the astute thing to do, in order that he not place himself in a conflict of interest position and bring his office in disrepute.

“This is applicable to all public officials more so to Ministers and those exercising judicial functions.”

The APNU Parliamentarian said that the AG could not be unaware of all the statements made by several critics questioning the independence of the Judiciary.

---

---