THE hallmark of every judiciary must be its independence. This is a pre-eminent quality that has to be an inherent factor residing in the ethical and moral understanding of any legal officer who is going to be appointed to function as a judge.

In any democracy, where the Rule of Law is allowed to be the guiding principle in the dispensation of justice, not only must the sacred tenet of the independence of the judiciary be expected to be unfettered, but that its judges are expected at all times, to be fair in their deliberations, and not be constrained by factors such as political influence, and social/class cleavages. Their ultimate delivery of justice must be reflective of, and be mandatory of the laid-down laws, and nothing else.

It explains why it is a given understanding, and a respected tradition for decisions of the court to be respected. Of course, there are always going to be disagreements, since in judicial matters, expectations of outcomes are not always welcome by either side of the particular judicial contention.

The fact that there are higher courts, which allow for the particular litigant who did not find favour in the lower court, to seek redress in the particular matter means that the wheels of justice are always in motion. This is expected to be the guiding and professional principle of any attorney, irrespective of who he/she may be, and what matter is represented, and who may not be successful in his/her particular appeal. But to descend to the disrespectful level of publicly abusing the presiding judges, as suffering “a collapse–a mental, judicial, jurisprudential collapse in reasoning”; suggesting “political’’ influence behind court decisions; labelling the learned chief justice’s ruling as being “adventurous’, while further describing the nation’s judiciary as not mature, and even branding two eminent Queen’s Counsel as “aliens”, is unforgivable.

It is inherent of a thought process that intends for justice to be distorted, regardless of the facts. It is also judicial sacrilege, that such reprehensible conduct could originate from a member of the Bar, who had once served as an attorney general and leader of his country’s Bar; and who also hopes to be his political party’s presidential candidate, for the 2020 national and regional elections. One wonders, what our young attorneys-at-law are opining about such a shocking assault on the most senior segment of the nation’s judiciary, and by extension, two very senior members of their country’s Bar, who have been part of the state’s defence team.

Regardless as to the nature of the case that engages the court, it has to be interpreted in the ambit of the country’s laws, with the particular judges being mindful of such, and therefore following that unswerving line.

However, it would seem that Anil Nandlall and the opposition political party that he has been representing in the extant matter of a constitutional challenge against the President’s appointment of the chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, believe that judges, and hence the courts, are obligated to bend the laws to support and accommodate their particular expectations.

No political party should expect any court, to adjudicate in their favour, out of fear, coercion or duress. To do so would only result in the gradual erosion of the line between stability and anarchy of the laws of society.

For no proper court that accepts its sacred role of protecting the laws of its jurisdiction, and ensuring their very unbending application will ever divert from such a process. After all, the law was made to be informal, and to be blind, but to be dispensed only in the name of what is right/just – justice. Mr. Nandlall should remind himself of this fact and advise his party leaders accordingly.