The full verdicts

Jul 23, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Two important cases were decided this week. The first concerned the interpretation of the article of the Constitution which dealt with the criteria for the appointment of a Chairperson for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM); the second was the decision in the legal challenge brought by a former banker against his dismissal.
The media houses have been doing a great job at keeping the public informed of the outcome of court cases which are of public interest. In fact, every single decision of the court should be of public interest. But these two cases were of extreme public interest, because they touched on questions which dealt with the right of citizens to elect a government of their choice, under elections which are administered by independent election machinery; and the rights of employees to be free from unlawful dismissals.
The written decisions in the cases this week have not been publicly published. Yet, there has been and will continue to be public comments on the decision without the benefit of knowledge of the full judgments.
The world is changing. Non-legal persons are taking a keen interest in legal matters. There are far more persons outside of the legal fraternity who have an opinion on these matters than there are inside. Many people have opinions on these issues these days. Those comments would be more informed if the full decisions in those cases were made public.
For the time being, persons have to go along with what, so far, is in the public domain. There have been criticisms and agreements on aspects of the first decision, but very little has been said about the second decision, which is of far more serious importance.
We have heard, for example, comments that the judge in the first case overstepped by making a determination on a question which was not before the court. This is an unfortunate criticism, because there is nothing unusual in a judge providing a comprehensive interpretation of a statute. In fact, it is far better for this to be done, lest another approach has to be made.
Legal and non-legal minds would be interested in knowing the basis upon which the Court found that the person to be appointed must possess judge-like qualities. What are those qualities? The publication of the full judgments would allow for such a determination. The media should try to obtain the full decisions and publish them.
The second decision has implications for the rights of employers. A number of questions now arise about the circumstances under which a person can be dismissed.
If a major fraud takes place at a place of employment, what is now the basis on which persons can be dismissed? Do employers now have to provide reasons for dismissal? What are procedures which must be adhered to if someone wants to let go of a worker? Is this decision going to be appealed or is the judgment going to be paid by the New Building Society.
There has been a great deal of confusion over this second decision. There are persons in the public who somehow believe that the decision was against the government. The government was not a party to the action brought by the dismissed banker. He brought the action against his former employers, the bank at which he worked, which was not and is not a government bank.
The Private Sector Commission should take careful note of the second decision, as should the government, because it now means that citizens who may previously have been of the view that their dismissals could not have been challenged have seen now that they can be.
The courts may now be swamped with a slew of litigation for wrongful dismissal. This is all the more reason why the full decision in the cases decided this week, should be published. The media would be doing a public duty if it obtains the written decisions and publishes them.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News