ON July 19, the law firm of Satram and Satram wrote one of the most important correspondences in 21st century Guyana to one of the most important bodies in this country, an institution that if not possessed of integrity and democratic instincts could devastate the collective psychic integrity of society in Guyana.

The letter addresses the mode of selecting judges for the High Court and the Court of Appeal and was sent to the Judicial Service Commission. I quote from the letter; “The Commission may be aware that its decisions are subject to Judicial Review. This means that in the exercise of any discretion, the Commission must act reasonably, rationally and fairly.”

A judge in any country in the democratic world possesses power that can approximate to the legal jurisdiction that the constitution gives to an elected government. To put it simply- a judge can contradict and overrule a policy decision of a prime minister or president. Just one, I repeat just one recent case in Guyana spells out the enormity of power the judiciary is clothed with.

Justice Sandil Kissoon ruled that EXXON must ensure that insurance of an unlimited amount is agreed to in the event of an oil spill and should EXXON refuse to comply, then the Environmental Protection Agency must withdraw the permit it offered to EXXON for its operations. What this High Court decision means and should be understood by every citizen of this country is that if EXXON did not comply, then the oil production would have had to stop.

An elected government accepts a foreign investment that over a 30-year period would have brought in maybe more than a trillion American dollars. A trillion is 1000 billion. So over that period, it could be more than a trillion. That sum has to put a gargantuan dent into poverty in Guyana over the same period. This case portrays the power of judges and, because of such authority, any country must get judicial officers that are appointed after extensive scrutiny.

I quote from the letter again; “Because of the public nature of these appointments and its potential impact on public life, the list of potential appointees be published prior to their appointment.” How can any human with commonsense disagree with this mode of selection?
Does any democratic country want an attorney to become a justice of the court when in his/her past there were serious manifestations of character faults? For example, visiting his/her child’s high school and remonstrating with the teachers; like physical exchanges with others in full view of the public; like threatening the media, like abusing their fellow lawyers. Should these acts of indiscretion not be considered in the application to become a High Court Judge or Court of Appeal Judge?

Let’s quote from the letter once more; “That members of the legal profession and members of the general public be invited to make submission to the Commission on the suitability of potential candidates?” Those lines remind us of the famous appearances before the Senate of Supreme Court Justices in the US. Perhaps the one that has stuck forever is the case of Clarence Thomas versus Anita Hill. When Thomas was nominated, Professor Hill appeared before the Senate with accusations of sexual harassment. In 2018, the Thomas/Hill scenario was repeated with the sexual accusation against President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh by Professor Christine Ford.

This columnist has been in active work for 35 consecutive years and what I have seen compels me to testify in front of the commission when the names are made public. There is a sitting (male) judge that has threatened me in a menacing manner to scare me and, in fact, violated my rights. Don’t anyone ever lecture me about evidence in journalistic investigation. I know about that. I have the evidence and I have discussed the situation with three top-notch lawyers and one powerfully placed person. I will not say more until my appearance before the commission if I am allowed.

I quote for the last time from the Satram and Satram letter to the Judicial Service Commission. “The need for this form of transparency is a legal necessity because once appointed, Judges enjoyed security of tenure and immunity from suits, making it virtually impossible to remove them.” So we finally have a Judicial Service Commission which will invite application from lawyers to be High Court Judges and Judges to be Court of Appeal Justices.|

The commission must, as a matter of moral responsibility to society, let the process be transparent. Finally, there must be a code of conduct for judges that they should be above the fray and not sue the press for libel. That is unheard of in any democratic country.