THE Opposition is developing a practice of taking the Government to court. The three branches of government– Executive, Legislative and Judicial– though equal and independent, serve as checks and balances on each other. Where the PPP/C, any group or individual for that matter, feels a wrong was committed against them and deserves the intervention of the court, such pursuit cannot be faulted.
The role of the judiciary is to adjudicate on matters of law in order to not only ensure justice is delivered, but also that as a pivotal mediator in ensuring law and order in the society. Effective and efficient functioning of this branch of government is healthy for democracy and in young nations such as ours, very crucial. Recent actions by the PPP/C of taking the APNU+AFC Government to court, for what clearly have been instances where its leadership engaged in alleged acts worthy of certain decisions taken by the state, may give rise to speculation as to whether it is out to waste the court’s time or seeking to escape accountability. Where this perception– real or perceived — is held, the court has its job to do and there exists confidence that it can do so judiciously.
Two recent incidents, in a pattern of others, are the law books and the Enmore/Hope Neighbourhood Democratic Council’s (NDC) computers. In the former, a conservatory order was granted by the court preventing the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) from seizing the books. The latter, Anil Nandlall, the accused in the former and legal representative of the NDC, said he will file a court order seeking the return of the computers, among other things. In both instances the properties are those of the state and there has been no denial by the accused that they were not taken by them. Where the conflicts exist is the accused thinking they are within their right to possess these properties, without what the state said, is its approval.
The layman and woman, understandably, taking note, including the admission of possession and the State Asset Recovery Unit and SOCU’s contention that possession did not follow legal procedures, would see the accused wasting the court’s time. But it need not be forgotten even in the face of evidence, some may argue irrefutable, in a court of law the preponderance of it and arguments by those appearing will play a significant role in influencing judgement.
Frank and honest assessment of the state’s ability to represent its cases in court are not without concern. Cases seen as rock solid in favour of judgement for the state, even too where the accused may very well know their actions were wrong, were defeated due to the quality of the state’s representation. In could be tempting, in situations like this, to think the state has lost because it was wrong, leaving room or creating acceptance, that the action of the accused was never wrong in the first place.
Among the last things citizens want from its government — whether those in office had your vote — is the sense that the state is pursuing action that is not in the best interest of its people. Where public opinions can be swayed, that wrong becomes right because of who is involved or accused and this can win through in court, is something to pay heed to. This trend does harm in undermining the confidence of government and embolden those who can secure the best lawyers.
There was a time when societies, such as the United States and Jamaica, where government was faced with the tough choice of allowing rampage on the state or present convincing arguments that the state will not be undermined by rogue elements. Cases that readily come to mind are the dismantling of drug cartels. Lawyers hired by the accused were not only good in making cases for their clients, whose acts were never doubted by the society, but also able to protect those in officialdom that were ensnared. It would not be an untrue statement in saying the state, through its departments would have to be cognisant of respecting the importance of not only having to do thorough homework, presenting the evidence — testimony, exhibits, etc — using its best prosecutors, but also that any case pursued on behalf of it must be done to secure justice for the state. Even in the presence of insurmountable public evidence, the judiciary cannot do the work of the executive, who has to do it through the state’s attorneys or prosecutors, be they among the regular corps or specially recruited.