THE judiciary is one of the three branches of government, with equal responsibility and importance in our political system of checks and balances.
The discharge of its duty requires human and physical resources. This branch not only has constitutional responsibility for adjudicating the law, but also providing the surety of its capacity to protect the rights and freedoms of every citizen. Guyana experiences an overload and somewhat archaic judicial system. The consequences of these have seen backlogs of cases that beg attention in keeping with the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. The magistracy (lower court) continues to operate without its full complement of magistrates that could only compromise the delivery of the service.

It is not unusual in this environment to have a magistrate running more than one court and having to work in excess of normal hours required of the job. This over demand could not only increase workplace stress/depression, but also could creates situations where decisions are flawed, and the inability to conclude cases within reasonable time. The lower court feeds the High Court and where flawed decisions exist, they contribute to further overloading this court, which too is without its full complement of judges. A similar burden would exist for the Appeal Court, which is not only presently under-staffed, but also facing handicap to sit. The situation has created reactions that are not to the system or nation’s benefit. And it matters not when the problem started and where blame can be laid. Dwelling on these in the absence of putting systems in place to correct the situation would not solve the problem. The complement of members of the judiciary has been arrived at based on the evaluated needs of the society and it helps when the quota is honoured.

Therefore, President David Granger’s statement on Tuesday in bringing clarity to claims that he had refused to appoint persons who were recommended to be judge was timely. President Granger said that he withheld approval of some recommendations until the new Chancellor could have an opportunity to review those recommendations. “I withheld approval because I sent the recommendations to the present Chancellor, who has agreed to look at them and resubmit a list to me. As soon as I get that list I will be able to act. So I did decline; I saw the list and I received some information and on the [basis] of that information I sent it to the present Chancellor and I am awaiting her advice,” the President said.

Effective discharge of the judiciary’s responsibility aids in citizens receiving justice in the shortest possible time. This could also realise reduction in the backlog of cases and the prison population, many of whom are on remand for considerable periods. Incarceration carries a financial cost to the State which is borne by taxpayers and could otherwise be diverted to other use. Overcrowding impinges on prisoners’ rights as outlined by international standards which puts at risk the country’s image in the international community. The human element to those who await trial and those who have accused also cannot be ignored given the inherent cost-psychological, social and financial. The public health situation that arises with overcrowding, such as internecine conflicts, put at risk not only inmates but also the security of the prison staff.

There were instances where inmates managed to get onto the prison roof calling for their cases to be heard. It is not unusual to hear an accused being remanded for as much as 10 years waiting for their case to be heard. The financial cost borne in hiring and sustaining legal counsel by the accused and that to the State, in preparing and deliberating on the matter, expeditious dispatch reduces the burden to both sides. In our common-law system, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty exists. Treating all from this premise would require not only being charged and placed before the court, but having a trial that is just and fair, and heard by a member of the judiciary with alacrity.

An important element of the judiciary often overlooked or taken for granted is the people’s confidence in the system. Where it is believed– real or perceived– that the judiciary is there to protect, will guarantee a fair trial, examine the circumstances and content of the case within an acceptable time, such can reduce temptation for corruption and vigilante justice. When there is a strong judiciary the corrupt, from all sections of society, is inclined to think twice and so too it is for those who want to take the law into their hands. A strong judiciary is linked to the respect for law and order. When a judiciary is not functioning at its full capacity, the system of government is undermined. It is in the nation’s interest that no effort is spared in ensuring its full complement of presiding officers– magistrates and judges– supporting personnel, and other requisite resources.