Precariously placed on a slippery slope

Jan 27, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The reaction of the government to the decision of the Chancellor to hear the appeal into the decision of Justice Chang outlawing term limits unless sanctioned by a referendum has been, to say the least, most frightful. The Guyana Chronicle caught a fit and went overboard in what is a most basic judicial practice.
The reaction mirrors the deep suspicions within our politics. Yet, it is the judiciary which has often been the one to which this country has had to turn to restore sanity, reason and order.
There is nothing controversial about a judge hearing a case close to his retirement. If anything, the public should have been asking why more cases were not being heard.
There are many cases which are waiting to be heard, but it has always been judicial practice that cases which in the public interest have to be heard urgently are so heard. Can you imagine what would have been the fate if the judiciary did not immediately entertain the challenges which were made to the swearing in of Mrs. Janet Jagan as President?
Guyana would have been in turmoil for years if that case had to join the waiting list. There is nothing dubious about hearing urgent cases. It is not the government alone which has been upset by the fact that some cases are not being heard. The opposition has a number of appeals before the Court which it will want heard. But it is not making suggestive innuendos against top judicial officials.
The broadside which was launched, using the Chronicle, is a sad indictment of the politics of this country. It was hoped that with an end to a long tenure in office by the PPPC, that a more civilized political culture would have emerged. This has not happened, and the signs suggest that it will not happen anytime soon.
There is no reason for any disguised attack on any judicial figure because of the hearing of what has been described as the third-term case. The court, which is not a one-man show but which constitutes three judges, should be allowed to do their work. Care should be taken in the tone and language of criticism, lest it invites an attack on the reputation of the judges of our Appeal Court.
There was a referendum in Britain as to whether that country should remain in the European Union. The referendum – the most direct form of democracy available in any political system today – was held. The people voted for withdrawal from the Union. It caused the Prime Minister to resign.
A Guyanese challenged the matter in the Courts, arguing that in Britain there is parliamentary sovereignty. This was an issue, Guyanese will recall, that was raised in a number of debates over the right of the National Assembly to ignore judicial rulings. Guyana, unlike Britain, does not have a system of parliamentary supremacy. Guyana has constitutional supremacy, unlike Great Britain where parliament is supreme. The effect of the outcome of the court case was that parliament has to sanction the withdrawal; a mere referendum would not suffice since in Britain, parliament is sovereign.
The ruling has been challenged. This is how the rule of law is supposed to operate. The arguments are made in the courts, not in the Guyana Chronicle. The courts are where disputes are settled, not in unnecessary and unwarranted exchanges in the press.
If the judiciary of Guyana is going to be subjected to political pressure and if the courts eventually submit to that pressure, my advice to all Guyanese is to get out of this country. It will mark the end of the rule of law, and no one should find any pleasure in wanting to live in a country where the rule of law does not exist.

2 thoughts on “Precariously placed on a slippery slope”

bl_666 January 27, 2017 at 11:14 am

“… and no one should find any pleasure in wanting to live in a country where the rule of law does not exist.”
Whooa! The ‘rule of law’ exists in Guyana?
Should this not come under “Breaking News”?
Pam January 27, 2017 at 1:49 pm

A lot are leaving already.