THERE is a terminology of the “Functional Superior” officers, and it makes sense within the hierarchy in the administration of, say, the departments of the Judiciary.We find that the Chancellor, the Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate and also the office of the Land Court are independent functionaries and not subject to the direction and/or control of each other in the discharge of their duties when sitting or presiding in their respective courts.
But there are no absolutes, or rather there shall not be any absolutes but if either branch does not perform fairly and does not work within guidelines established, it will be subject to the discipline by those in whom such authority resides.
Recently, I have been observing in the newspapers that the Honourable Acting Chief Justice had been reversing/varying orders made by magistrates in the granting or refusal of bail to persons accused of serious criminal offences. This has left a bad taste in the mouth as in my opinion a very basic principle of fair hearing appears to have been breached.
In any complaint made against the magistrate whose bail order is challenged, the magistrate ought to be called upon to offer reasons to justify his/her order. The superior court ought not to whimsically vary or discharge an order without calling for an explanation – and if it becomes necessary for the order to be varied, reasons must be given which will serve as a guide to the magistrate to put them on the right track.
I think the acting Chief Justice who has a direct responsibility for magistrates should conduct seminars/workshops for magistrates so that they may be guided in the proper discharge of their duties.
I emphasise this point because the perception is that the current magistrates do not go to the Bench with sufficient or adequate experience to deal with the matters which confront them daily. They are the first line of defence of law and order in the country and it is a grave responsibility which must be addressed in a proper and forthright manner.

VERWAYNE ADAMS