Persistent Ad Hominem attacks on the Georgetown Magistracy is reprehensible

Mar 28, 2026 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

I write to express profound concern regarding the escalating pattern of ad hominem attacks directed at a particular Magistrate within the Georgetown Magistracy as repeated, ad nauseam, in social media. These attacks, originating from individuals both within and outside the Government of Guyana, represent a dangerous erosion of the foundational principles of judicial independence and the rule of law. Whether these negative comments are calculated in pressuring the Magistrate to arrive at a “speedy” conclusion inconclusively or to create national or international opprobrium, is a complete lack of decorum and is quite insulting. Magistrates, like all other legal luminaries discharging their duties, are bounded by the Socratic Oath/ Socratic Method to deduce. Magistrates and judges are expected to remain disinterested parties in the eventual outcomes of their decisions.

The Magistracy serves as the primary interface between the citizenry and the judicial system. It is the bedrock upon which public confidence in justice is built. When magistrates are subjected to personal vilification, unfounded accusations, and contemptuous public commentary—rather than constructive legal criticism—the intention appears to be not to seek accountability, but to intimidate, undermine, and delegitimize a constitutionally protected institution.

Editor, it is particularly alarming when such attacks emanate from individuals within the Government. While freedom of expression is a cherished constitutional right, public officials bear a heightened responsibility to respect the separation of powers. Rhetoric that seeks to bully judicial officers or prejudice pending matters strikes at the heart of an independent judiciary. When combined with attacks from external actors who leverage media platforms to launch personalized vendettas against judicial officers, the cumulative effect is a coordinated assault on the integrity of the court.

In this context, it is necessary to address the critical importance of the law of contempt of court. Contempt powers are not designed to shield judicial officers from legitimate scrutiny or fair criticism. However, they are the indispensable mechanism by which the judiciary defends itself against conduct that scandalizes the court, obstructs the administration of justice, or creates a real risk of prejudice to judicial proceedings.

Editor, the severity of punishment for contempt of court is often misunderstood by the public. The judiciary does not wield this power for the personal benefit of the magistrate or judge. Rather, the severity reflects the gravity of the offense against the public interest. When an individual, whether a private citizen or a high-ranking official, engages in a sustained campaign of personal denigration against a magistrate, they are not merely insulting an individual; they are attacking the institutional authority required to adjudicate disputes fairly and without fear or favor.

The punishment for contempt serves three essential purposes:

1. Vindication of Public Authority: It affirms that the administration of justice cannot be held hostage to mob rhetoric or political pressure.
2. Deterrence: It sends an unequivocal message that the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary through personal attacks will not be tolerated.
3. Protection of Due Process: It ensures that pending cases are decided on the evidence and the law, not under the shadow of public vilification of the presiding officer.

Editor, we must be clear: a democracy cannot survive where judicial officers require the permission of the executive or the approval of social media mobs to perform their duties. If the Georgetown Magistracy is allowed to be routinely denigrated by actors with political or personal motives, without consequence, we risk descending into a state where justice is determined by popularity rather than principle.

Additionally, the media, the unofficial 4th branch of the government- termed the FOURTH ESTATE- plays a crucial role in this landscape. Responsible journalism demands distinguishing between protected free speech and speech that poses a clear and present danger to judicial independence. By providing a platform for ad hominem attacks disguised as political commentary, media houses risk becoming accomplices to the subversion of the rule of law.

We call on all stakeholders—the legal fraternity, civil society, the Executive, and the media—to unequivocally defend the institutional integrity of the Magistracy. Criticism of judicial decisions must remain within the bounds of respectful discourse, focused on legal reasoning rather than personal destruction. The severity of contempt sanctions is not a sign of a weak judiciary; it is the last bulwark against anarchy. Let us not wait until the erosion of public confidence in our courts is irreversible before we recognise the value of what we are losing.

Respectfully,

Jonathan Subrian Esq.

---

• Ad Hominem, attacks, Georgetown Magistracy, Judicial Independence, Letters

---