– criticism is permissible provided it does not impugn judicial integrity

ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, has affirmed that the judiciary is not immune from public criticism, arguing that judicial independence must not be interpreted as placing judicial officers beyond accountability or scrutiny.
Nandlall made this known during his weekly programme, Issues in the News, where he indicated that members of the public have a right to comment on the administration of justice, including matters before the courts, provided such criticism is made in good faith and does not undermine the integrity of judicial officers or seek to improperly influence proceedings.
“The judiciary is not immune from criticism,” Nandlall said.
He explained that while members of the public cannot approach judges directly to demand answers about cases before them, this necessary insulation from direct engagement does not remove the public’s right to express concerns about the functioning of the justice system.
“The law is correct in insulating judges from that engagement because that can also lead to unsavoury engagements,” he said.
However, Nandlall said the public must have another avenue through which concerns about the administration of justice can be expressed.
“Because of the insulation, members of the public, whose right it is to complain, don’t have that access, so they have to have another access because they have a freedom to speak on matters that concern them,” he said.
The Attorney General said criticism of the judiciary is permissible provided it is genuine and respectful, stressing that those exercising that right must not cast aspersions on the integrity of judicial officers.
“You are entitled to criticise the judiciary, but you must do so without casting aspersions on the integrity of the officer, you must not be motivated by malice,” he said.
Nandlall also argued that the public’s right to comment extends to ongoing cases, rejecting the notion that the sub judice principle automatically prevents public discussion of matters before the courts.
He said the rule applies where commentary seeks to influence the outcome of a case, rather than simply discussing or criticising a matter of public interest.
“The sub judice rule doesn’t bar discussion or even criticism of a case that is ongoing,” Nandlall said.
Against this backdrop, he maintained that judicial independence is constitutionally guaranteed in Guyana, but said that independence does not equate to a lack of accountability.
“Judges, and other judicial officers are accountable,” he said.
“They are accountable, and the public and society must hold them accountable for the discharge of their functions, but must do so with dignity and respect.”