HAS the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) embarked on a destructive policy for down-grading the judicial system?

The Registry of the Supreme Court is completely devoid of an Attorney-at-Law among its staff. Yet, both the posts of Registrar and Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court require Attorneys-at-Law with some years of experience in the practice of civil law.

The present officer tasked with the responsibility of overall management of the affairs of the Supreme Court Registry, though an experienced clerk, who is about to retire, is a person without any legal training and can therefore bring to bear no legal knowledge to the performance of duties of Registrar of the Supreme Court. The performance of such duties will surely demand professional knowledge of civil law and procedure. The Judicial Service Commission must be aware that the nature of the duties of Registrar informs the requirement that persons holding the posts of Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court must be attorneys-at-law with experience in the practice if civil law.

Given that the sudden departure of Sita Ramlal on interdiction or administrative leave was quite unexpected, why was the post of Deputy Registrar not filled for many years now by a person who must meet the professional requirements for that post? That professional person would have been now acting as Registrar instead of a person who is no more than an experienced clerk. How long does the Judicial Service Commission intend this state of affairs, which is a recipe for collapse of the judicial system, to continue?

The office of the Registrar of Deeds is also another post which ought to be held by a qualified attorney-at-law. Yet, for many years now that office has been held by a person who has no legal qualifications and no attempt is being made by the Judicial Service Commission to put an end to this anomaly. Indeed, it appears that such a state of affairs could not continue for so long without the complicity of the Judicial Service Commission.

In addition to all of this, for years now there has been a silent public disquiet over a number of appointments to the judiciary. If a survey were to be carried out with some guarantee of confidentiality as regards the names of the interviewees (particularly practicing lawyers), the results would reveal that for quite a few years now the appointees to the judiciary do not inspire confidence in their capability to deliver justice in a timely manner. It appears that the entire Parliament shares this public difference. One lawyer remarked that the judges are expert football players as they have acquired the expertise of deftly passing and re-passing cases to each other. The truth is that the level of public confidence in the ability of our judges to dispense justice in a timely manner is at an all-time low.

In all of this, can the Judicial Service Commission deny complicity? The question which must be therefore be asked is whether the Judicial Service Commission has embarked on a policy of down-grading the entire judicial system instead of up-grading it? Hard decisions of change must be made before it is too late. If the judicial system fails, the entire society will fail.
UMAR SAIED