Dear Editor

GUYANA’S top judicial positions-the offices of the Chief Justice and Chancellor are up for substantive appointments. Now that this unique opportunity has precipitately been presented to the present powers to make changes and usher in a new beginning in the administration of justice in our sovereign nation, the Judicial Service Commission, the President and Leader of the opposition must put petty differences aside, and grasp this opportunity.

Many expatriate Guyanese, especially judicial luminaries, who migrated to the Caribbean and have enriched the jurisprudential mosaic of these countries, should be recruited, encouraged and screened for these positions. A wide ranging notice of vacancies and public search must be objectively implemented across the Commonwealth and Caribbean.

More importantly, bias, favoritism, pressure or the mere appearance of these disqualifying malaises, must be eradicated. Neither the Chief Justice or the Chancellor can have a spouse or other sibling who can be, or may appear to be, a conduit of undue influence, coercion or inducement that can disrupt the flow of the pure, untethered stream of justice, nor one that can superimpose his or her opinions on the thoughts, research and decisions of these seminal officers of the Court.

The case of Attorney-at-law Maxwell Edwards and Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards (Ag.), come to mind. With the greatest respect for these individuals, I cite this example, not because of any perceived corrupt or improper acts or influence, but to mitigate the appearance thereof. In any event, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards’ appointment to act as Chief Justice after Justice Ian Chang proceeded on preretirement leave was premature and contrary to the provisions in the Guyana Constitution, Article 127 (2) of the Constitution, and this unholy haste and constitutional flaw imperils any substantive appointment.

Indeed, the President must be reminded of the predecessors of these prestigious offices, and resolve to select, nominate and appoint jurists of the ilk of Sir Joseph Luckhoo, Sir Kenneth Stoby, J.O.F. Haynes, Keith Massiah, Victor Crane, and Chief Justice Kenneth George and others, and R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233.)

It is a leading case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.” Our jurisprudence is rooted in the maxim, “Let justice be done, though the sky may fall,” and what Immanuel Kant said: “Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it.”

The days where a Judge can merely “concur,” without writing a respectable, independent decision, or proscrastinate for years to write an opinion of the most mundane of legal issues, or where a sauve, manipulative counsel or politician writes a Judge’s opinion, must be decidedly put behind us.

Regards
Ganpat Singh