EVERY civilization over the centuries has had individuals and entities either elected or appointed to adjudicate over civil and criminal matters in societies, within parameters of the philosophy on human law, which is one definition of jurisprudence. Human law is not necessarily defined by formalised training in the structured academic equations and is not bound thereto, but can encompass rules within informal and formal structures such as homes, educational establishments, religious organisations, business entities, social institutions etcetera; and the premise on which the concept of lay magistrates is found is based on this mould.

The civilizations from which all our ancestors came from all had communal justice systems, even the British, said Anil Nandall, Member of Parliament and Attorney-at-Law, he further stated, that the country from which we inherited our legal system, the United Kingdom, first created, in the year 1195, the concept of lay magistracy, when King Richard 1 appointed Justices of the Peace as “Keepers of the Peace.”

According to Nandalall, today in the UK there are over thirty thousand lay magistrates who sit in some seven hundred courts in England compared to two hundred and seventy-five trained magistrates who sit in cities and larger towns.

He said that these lay magistrates are empowered to hear and decide on a wide variety of legal matters and they deal with ninety-seven percent of all criminal cases in the UK.

The African tribal laws gave way to the laws of the English, as did the Panchaayat system of the Indians, but within farflung communities in the hinterland the word of the Toushao is still law for minor offences, because no outsider can adjudicate effectively within a communal system of which he has no knowledge or understanding of.

As Nandalall said, the enactment of the Lay Magistrates Bill would allow for prompt disposal of hundreds of petty matters that occur on a daily basis, facilitating timely trials of more serious cases, which of necessity have to be tried by legally-trained magistrates, because, as Nandalall pointed out, the Lay Magistrates Bill confers only a minute comparative functional responsibility and has severe jurisdictional limits on the functions of lay magistrates.

Attorney- General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Charles Ramson, reminded the House that a less formal system at the lowest level of litigation was the concept of late Dr. Cheddi Jagan, who was concerned at the suffering ensuing from the large backlog of cases.

The AG said that Cabinet had approved laying of the Bill in the House since 1999.

The AG said the functions of lay magistrates will not in the least possible way impinge upon the jurisdiction of the current crop of magistrates.

He assured the House that this proposed parallel jurisdiction will involve vital community participation and that a non-executive person, primarily the Chancellor, will play a vital role in appointments, dismissals, and review of every procedure relating to this fourth tier in local jurisprudence.

Ramson is adamant that under his watch, there will be “a sharp division between executive and judicial branches of the State.”

In his address Ramson outlined what he termed as putting into perspective the parameters and true motivation for the constitution of lay magistrates courts, among which he factored in, a reduction of the burden on the more formal courts, prompt disposal of minor matters that cause much angst in families, communities, and the society in general, and which dominate the time of trained magistrates, causing persons to be left on remand for long periods before their trial can actually begin.

Opposition Members, while supporting the Bill in principle, all called for it to be sent to a special select committee, to which suggestion former AG Bernard Dos Santos reminded the House that the first Bill tabled for the constitution of lay magistrates courts was sent ten years ago to a special select committee, from which it never returned.

The Bill was passed, with amendments by AG Ramson, who deferred to a concern expressed by Opposition Member, Basil Williams, on the formulation of Clause 9 of the Bill.

Making concessions to relevant concerns expressed, as distinct from opposing because one is in the opposition and putting roadblocks to policies that will ease the burden on the people of the land, is laudatory and commendable.

There are many lawyers sitting on the opposition benches, and all of them know the daily traumas of the ordinary man of the streets, who throng the courtrooms of the country in a bid to seek justice for minor matters which, left unresolved, could escalate into (and often do) unmanageable proportions – even leading to murder.

While the logistics need to be worked out, this Bill is a commendable step on the part of the Government, and one which the Opposition should embrace rather than oppose, because it would create a venue for quick justice to be dispensed in a less formal way by persons within communities, especially farflung communities, who may be familiar with the protagonists and the peculiarities of individual cases, which could facilitate quick pronouncements and timely disposal of matters.

Many politicians in the rarified world in which they exist have lost touch with the cares and concerns of the common man, to the extent where even saving a child from being lost in the system does not merit help or intervention, unless it gets into the public domain.

But people are not fooled, and it is in addressing their concerns and their needs that politicians derive their personal credibility, and the credibility of the office they hold.

Scoring cheap political points when the outcome can affect the lives, livelihoods, and the quality of the lives of the citizens of the nation by opposing the Lay Magistrates Bill will redound to the detriment of the citizens of the land, who need to know that their leaders are addressing their concerns, and this will be reflected in the outcome of General Elections of 2011.