NO ACCOUNTABILITY

Aug 31, 2017 Editorial, Features / Columnists

As Guyanese, we have a very contentious situation that should be addressed by the government through constitutional reform in order to ensure justice is being done fairly to all citizens.
In 1924, Lord Chief Justice (Gordon) Hewart of Britain famously noted that “it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should be manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done.”
This has been a fundamental principle that has been frequently recited since then, but sometimes conveniently eschewed by those with power.
If there is one reason to reform the Constitution, it would be ideal for the government to do so to make changes to the functioning of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Over the years there have been numerous complaints; some public, but others quietly, to reform the office of the DPP in order that justice be manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done.
Presently, if the President and his cabinet conduct the affairs of the State to the displeasure of the electorate, they would likely be banished into the political wasteland as they did on May 11, 2015 with the PPP. Power that is given can also be taken away. There are several other functionaries, legislative, executive or judicial, who can be held accountable or must at least give explanations to either an Auditor General, a Commission of Enquiry or the law courts for decisions made or actions taken by them. But the Constitution gives carte-blanche power to the office of the DPP which accounts to no one in terms of decisions or actions taken. This unconditional power cannot be the best state of affairs in any democracy if transparency and accountability are to be taken seriously.
The Constitution authorizes the DPP to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court other than a martial court. The DPP may also take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other person or authority and can discontinue any criminal case at any juncture before judgment is given. This is the power vested in the DPP to the exclusion of any other person or authority.
However, this state of affairs is not unique to Guyana. Such a non-existent checks and balances system of this highly important and very powerful office exists in other Caribbean countries. In Jamaica, Section 94 (6) of its Constitution confers similar power on the office of the DPP, where it is not subject to the direction or control of anyone or authority. But like Guyana, questions have been raised by the public about such exclusionary power.
While we believe that the office of the DPP should be immune to political or any other societal influence and that such autonomy must be protected, there should be some mechanism in the Constitution that makes it mandatory for a DPP to be held accountable for his/her actions/decisions to the public either by written and/or verbal explanation. The DPP should provide reasons when cases are discontinued without obvious cause to those in the legal profession and to the average citizen.
Moreover, the victims of crime should be taken into consideration, but some of us are only concerned when crime affects directly or our immediate kin. But if the sufferer of a rape, robbery or fraud, or the family of a murdered victim discovers that the perpetrator has been freed as a result of a discontinuation of the case or there has been no trial, the family affected deserves to be at least given an explanation. If not, it will be seen by the public that there are two justice systems—one for the rich and powerful and the other for the poor and powerless. As such, there needs to be changes in the office of the DPP because the perception of justice being done is just as important as justice actually being done.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News