ONE of the most crucial dimensions of life in society is accountability of the judiciary. One reason explains this – the judiciary has jurisdiction that reaches into horizons that the executive and the legislature cannot travel towards. It is crucial to note that the executive and the legislature are subject to discipline and dismissal.

President and Prime Ministers could lose their job by way of the national vote. The police chief can be fired by the Cabinet after a hearing by the Police Service Commission. The same with the army head. Cabinet ministers can be removed.
I had two very young lawyers on the Freddie Kissoon Show – Joshua Abdool and Donovan Rangiah- last Wednesday. The question of accountability of judges came up and how can such accountability be implemented. Judges cannot easily be removed. It is a labyrinthine process to have a judge dismissed from the bench. The only one I recall is Justice Pompey after President Hoyte set in motion a process to remove him.
It is because of the huge latitude of the judiciary that accountability is exigent, but how do you shape accountability without damaging the credibility of the judiciary. It is a very complex issue. Only one solution exists at the moment – the right of the citizenry to criticise judges’ decisions. If you take away that right then the judiciary becomes infallible and beyond the reach of the totality of society.
I will give one example of the incredible power of the judiciary then look at the hypocrisy of the Bar Association. Justice Sandil Kissoon gave two decisions which I feel undermine the essential pillars of government. One is his ruling that teachers that were on strike must be paid by the government for strike days. I think that undermines the role of government. The second one is far more eye-raising. Justice Kissoon ruled that unless EXXON provides unlimited insurance for an oil spill, the EPA must withdraw its environment permit to EXXON to operate in Guyana.

The oil company said it cannot do that. If EXXON loses in the Court of Appeal, then the company leaves Guyana because the EPA has to comply. What the judiciary would have done then is scuttle the largest investment in the history of this country. But more importantly, the discontinuation of oil production wipes away the state’s income. Can a judge have such power? And should the society be allowed to offer comments on such a decision? Enter the Bar Association.
The Association is reported in the press yesterday (Thursday) of protesting threats and scurrilous remarks made against judges on social media. I think any decent citizen should draw the line on two deviancies in society – physical attack on an officer of the law and threats and abuse of the judiciary. No society should tolerate that because social stability gets jeopardised.
But the Bar Association must, at the same time that it seeks to rightly protect the credibility of the judiciary, have a moral duty to demand responsibility from members of the judiciary when unbecoming conduct harms the credibility of the judiciary. But here lies an enormous difficulty of the Bar Association.

It cannot castigate members of the judiciary because there is the element of fear, and that was expressed for all the viewers to see last Wednesday on the Freddie Kissoon Show when both lawyers decided that they do not want to go into the area of criticising judges and magistrates.

There is no other graphic case of this fear than a court case in which I was the defence. I related this drama on this page and requested a comment from the Bar Association but got no response more than a year now.
A judge sued me for libel over a decision in which a young man was charged for murder over a home invasion and was sentenced to time served – three years. I disagreed with the light sentence plus the court did not proceed with impact statement from family members.
The judge did not give me the opportunity to apologise. I could not get any lawyer, including very personal friends who would do thousands of libel cases for me freely, to take the case. They all said it was a huge risk because future clients could be victimised. Three lawyers secretly drew up my defence and an excellent, influential, Guyanese implored Glen Hanoman to be the defence lawyer. Once more, I thank this courageous attorney for being fearless.
When the case came up, Justice Sandra Kurtzious declined to hear it and ordered mediation. In the mediation, the judge claimed that I simply could have apologised. Again, I am asking the Bar Association for a comment.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.