JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, July 20, 2025

Independence of the Judiciary

by

20130122

The threat posed to the Ju­di­cia­ry by the all-in­clu­sive pow­ers of the Prime Min­is­ter is not any­where near as ap­par­ent and patent­ly against the doc­trine of the sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers as is the con­trol of the Par­lia­ment by the Prime Min­is­ter and the Cab­i­net.

Nev­er­the­less, in the search for ar­eas of the 1976 Re­pub­li­can Con­sti­tu­tion which are in des­per­ate need of re­form to achieve, among oth­er things, mean­ing­ful sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers among the Par­lia­ment, the Ex­ec­u­tive and the Ju­di­cia­ry, there is need to fo­cus on as­pects of the Ju­di­cia­ry which con­tin­ue to be cap­tive of the Prime Min­is­ter and Cab­i­net.

As claimed in 1999 by Chief Jus­tice Michael de la Bastide, the Gov­ern­ment, through At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Ramesh Ma­haraj, was seek­ing to use Gov­ern­ment's fi­nan­cial con­trol of the ju­di­cia­ry's bud­get and cer­tain as­pects of the hu­man re­sources func­tion of the courts as a means through which it could ex­er­cise some form of con­trol over the Ju­di­cia­ry.

As in­ter­pret­ed by de la Bastide, the ex­er­cise of such fi­nan­cial con­trol over the Ju­di­cia­ry by the AG hav­ing to agree with the fi­nan­cial and ad­min­is­tra­tive pro­gramme of the Ju­di­cia­ry be­fore he could sub­mit it to Cab­i­net and the Par­lia­ment for ap­proval was a threat to the in­de­pen­dence of the Ju­di­cia­ry. Two com­mis­sions, one con­duct­ed by re­spect­ed Caribbean ju­rist Jus­tice Prof Telford Georges, and the oth­er head­ed by Britain's Lord Mack­ay, found dif­fer­ent­ly.

Georges not­ed, "The At­tor­ney Gen­er­al has no re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to Cab­i­net for the ad­min­is­tra­tion of jus­tice. Such a re­spon­si­bil­i­ty would con­note a de­gree of con­trol over the op­er­a­tion of the ju­di­cia­ry, and could not prop­er­ly be giv­en to him." Lord Mack­ay did not agree that there was any di­a­bol­i­cal in­ten­tion on the part of the AG but urged the two arms of Gov­ern­ment to work to­geth­er in the na­tion­al in­ter­est.

Need­less to say, there was dis­agree­ment over the two re­ports. Sub­se­quent­ly, chief jus­tices Sat Shar­ma and, most re­cent­ly, in­cum­bent Chief Jus­tice Ivor Archie, in dif­fer­ent ways have ex­pressed con­cern over is­sues such as the Ex­ec­u­tive hav­ing some form of con­trol over the hu­man re­sources of the Ju­di­cia­ry.

Archie's con­cerns were with the de­lays be­ing ex­pe­ri­enced by the Ju­di­cia­ry with achiev­ing the best and quick­est in­dus­tri­al agree­ments for its hu­man re­sources. He ad­vo­cat­ed that such HR pow­ers be ex­er­cised com­plete­ly by the Ju­di­cia­ry.

Notwith­stand­ing that suc­ceed­ing chief jus­tices have shown them­selves alert to po­ten­tial in­cur­sion, re­al or per­ceived, by the Ex­ec­u­tive which may be ea­ger to ex­er­cise pow­er over the courts while pay­ing lip ser­vice to the sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers when it makes good po­lit­i­cal copy, there is clear need for fur­ther in­sti­tu­tion­al safe­guards to cre­ate an im­pen­e­tra­ble fire­wall be­tween the Gov­ern­ment and the Ju­di­cia­ry.

One po­si­tion tak­en by Com­mon­wealth lead­ers in the La­timer House Prin­ci­ples for the Com­mon­wealth (2003) was the need to pro­vide ad­e­quate fund­ing for the Ju­di­cia­ry with an­nu­al funds be­ing re­leased to courts on the ba­sis of sub­mis­sions made. Once the Par­lia­ment has passed the bud­get of the Ju­di­cia­ry, the funds must then be re­leased in to­tal with the Ju­di­cia­ry hav­ing the re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to com­pre­hen­sive­ly ac­count at the end of the fi­nan­cial year.

This par­tic­u­lar prin­ci­ple is op­posed to what now ex­ists with the Ju­di­cia­ry hav­ing to con­stant­ly make re­quests for funds al­ready passed by the Par­lia­ment through the min­istry of fi­nance like any oth­er part of the pub­lic ser­vice, clear­ly an un­ten­able sit­u­a­tion which is a sub­tle un­der­min­ing of the in­sti­tu­tion­al in­de­pen­dence of the courts.

So while clear­ly the Ju­di­cia­ry is not sub­ju­gat­ed to the fi­at, likes and dis­likes of the Prime Min­is­ter, as the Cab­i­net and Par­lia­ment are, a full and in­sti­tu­tion­al sep­a­ra­tion of the pow­ers be­tween the Ex­ec­u­tive and the Ju­di­cia­ry has to be achieved.

There are oth­er ar­eas of con­sti­tu­tion­al and oth­er forms of dom­i­na­tion by the Prime Min­is­ter which need to be se­ri­ous­ly ex­am­ined and amend­ed in the con­sti­tu­tion­al re­form ex­er­cise up ahead. For in­stance, why should the Prime Min­is­ter have any say in who should re­ceive na­tion­al awards?

The ex­pe­ri­ence since the start of the in­de­pen­dence awards has clear­ly demon­strat­ed that many awards are giv­en on the ba­sis of po­lit­i­cal af­fil­i­a­tion and oth­er such par­ti­san cri­te­ria.

At present, the Chief Jus­tice heads the com­mit­tee which re­ceives rec­om­men­da­tions of cit­i­zens de­serv­ing of award. How­ev­er, af­ter the com­mit­tee makes its mer­it-based as­sess­ment of the most de­serv­ing, the list is passed on to the Prime Min­is­ter, who then has the pow­er to re­move from the list those not po­lit­i­cal­ly favoured and se­lect those who, in one way or the oth­er, have served or will serve the po­lit­i­cal needs of the Prime Min­is­ter and rul­ing par­ty.

Sim­i­lar­ly, the his­to­ry of al­lo­cat­ing the des­ig­na­tion of se­nior coun­sel to at­tor­neys has been com­plete­ly sub­ject to pol­i­tics. All gov­ern­ments, at­tor­neys gen­er­al and prime min­is­ters have not on­ly award­ed the ti­tle to their friends, fam­i­ly mem­bers and po­lit­i­cal sup­port­ers, but have adorned them­selves, de­serv­ing or not, with the des­ig­na­tion SC.

These process­es have cheap­ened the grant­i­ng of awards by the State, and made them in­to pa­cotille hand­outs for the po­lit­i­cal­ly well-con­nect­ed.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored