THIS newspaper has attracted criticisms regarding reportage on the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Carl Singh, notably relating to matters before the courts on Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo’s race-baiting case, Dipcon, and his upcoming retirement from the judiciary.

From our vantage point, these stories were covered, because in addition to the title Justice Singh holds and his influence on the judiciary, they were considered newsworthy. There has been no campaign to discredit the Justice, as a person or his office, or to be contemptuous of the court. Neither has our coverage relating to him and his service been one of a government-directed policy to discredit this public servant.

It is not this newspaper’s intent to justify any action perceived by others to be injurious to the Chancellor’s reputation, his service to the country, and/or the judiciary. And if our reportage overtime has been considered such as believed by Mr Ralph Ramkarran, attorney- at-law, former Speaker of the National Assembly, columnist in Stabroek News, and others, we regret the perception.

As our society continues to evolve, diagnostic analyses to review and improve on our performance and eschew the things that have not been to our collective growth and development are helpful. The media, which reflect the prevailing culture of the society, are not absolved from such treatment.

This newspaper, which is state-owned, has been evolving over the years. It has functioned under different editorial leadership, boards, and governments in an environment not without its social, economic, political and cultural challenges.

Within its DNA, it carries the stigma of being used as a political mouthpiece for incumbent governments and against individuals and groups. It is acknowledged that in spite of being under new management and government the reputation lingers, though efforts continue to be made to build confidence.

Admittedly, in covering matters pertaining to court proceedings, the journalists and media have to be careful lest the issue be misrepresented. Our society in its evolution has relaxed the formal structures and applications of our official language in every sphere of engagement, formal and informal. The recognition that the Judicature is independent and not subsumed by the Executive, though ensconced in the Guyana Constitution, the society has been led to believe the contrary. Allegations, some not without merit, about interference in the judiciary is commonplace.

The move in the August 2015 National Budget to provide this branch of government with its own budget is an effort to strengthen its independence and this progressive step, though belated, must see support through knowledge and enforcement. And it should matter not that those who presently call for such independence to be respected, previously did not facilitate or encourage it.

A problem in this society which this newspaper has editorialised on is creating that of opportunities to not only have honest and frank conversation on the constitution, but also to make it part of our formal education. There is no denying that conversations on the constitution where they are primarily driven by condemnation, do not help the people in having that sense of awareness of what it constitutes, what is expected of them, and how it should be reported on.

Where politicians and opinion-shapers may find utility in berating or promoting compliance with the constitution, depending on which side of the political divide they find themselves at given periods, this approach enables the aforesaid circumstance.
Civil society, notably the Bar Association, remains largely silent in helping to provide the needed conversation.

It is not unfair to say that there are few persons, save those who use the constitution as their main reference point in impressing an understanding of their thinking of its utility to our existence and management of the state. Equally, it can be said that there are among us those who selectively reference it when it conforms to their agenda.

Knowledge is important to growth and development. As a media outlet — where it remains our desire to elevate public discourse, improve our performance and the nation’s quality of life — there has been expressed support in our editorials for the establishment of think-tanks and like-minded organisations, which will go a far way in providing the needed services.