The Association, in previous media coverage, did in fact stress the need for an Oversight Body which can monitor the work of JP’s and COA’s in a systematic manner, ensuring strict adherence to the requirements of their appointments that are outlined in the Summary Jurisdiction (Magistrates) Act Cap 3:05 (for JP’s) and Section 96: Evidence Act Cap 5:03 (for Commissioners of Oaths). The respective Commissioners granted to JP’s and COA’s under the President’s seal defines the limitation confines, namely which jurisdiction is applicable and the severe nature of the duty, responsibility or empowerment.

The Association does not condone any malpractice of JP’s and COA’s and in fact, has categorically stated its position to debar any such person from membership status and privileges.

This integrity issue was raised at a meeting by a delegation from the Association with the former Attorney General. The question of imposition or exorbitant fees for services rendered by some JP’s and COA’s has been a major concern also. In some cases the selection process has left much to be desired and ought to be more rigid and transparent.

Meanwhile, the JP Association is fully committed to its regularisation process, membership expansion, and sustainability.

HERMON BHOLAISINGH