CIVILITY AND ORDER

Jul 19, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Two recent courts decisions have resurrected hope for our nation. The courts have been victims of a public smear campaign by those who want certain outcome and when the courts do not deliver these outcomes, it has been suggested that members of the judiciary are partisan.
The substance of the decisions is immaterial. The decisions, as all decisions, will not find favor with everyone. Already we are seeing both of the main political parties jockeying to establish that one of the court decisions was in their favour.
That particular case involves the interpretation of the provision of the Constitution which deals with the appointment of the Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).
The court in not avoiding interpreting the Constitution has ensured that its guardianship over the highest law of the land remains untrammelled. The court did not dodge the issue of its right as a guardian of the Constitution.
It made an unambiguous ruling. The court reaffirmed its right to interpret the constitution, free from any form of pressure. Not everyone will agree with its interpretation but the court has not been timid in advancing an interpretation.
One of the parties to that case has indicated a disagreement with a section, not the totality of the ruling, and has said that an appeal will be filed. This is how differences have to be settled in a democratic society. The court must be the place where such differences have to be settled.
To those who have differences with a ruling or with the aspects of a ruling, there is resort to a higher court. Decisions of a lower court can be appealed at a higher court. Decisions of the Guyana Court of Appeal can be appealed through resort to the Caribbean Court of Justice. This makes useless all the talk about biased rulings by judges.
Local judicial officials know that their decisions are not final, that it can overturned by higher local courts or by the Caribbean Court of Justice. Judges will therefore not find any comfort in making a biased ruling because they will face the humiliation of being overturned by the CCJ.
All these years, the reputation of some of Guyana’s leading jurists was smeared. They were accused of all manner of biases, including biased decisions. Yet, all of their decisions are liable to be subject to higher review. So why would they risk their reputations just in order to give biased decisions.
We now have an interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution which deal with the appointment of the Chairperson. That decision is subject to challenge and had been challenged. This is healthy for democratic governance. It will be healthier if court cases can be determined with greater speed so that long festering disputes will be a thing of the past.
In the second case, an individual has had to wait a long time for a ruling. He has a ruling in his favour. But this ruling, like others, is also likely to be challenged. That decision has serious implications for labour laws in the Caribbean and it will be useful to see the outcome of any appeal. The Court of Appeal and the CCJ are likely to hear appeals and counter appeals in this matter.
The rule of law not only means that everyone should be subject to the law. It also implies that people will respect rulings of the court until such time as these are overturned by higher courts.
In the meantime, the debate will go on about the nature of rulings.
As long as these do not bring the judiciary into disrepute and as long as rulings are not disregarded, hope will exist that order and civility will prevail.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News