CJ wants AG’s powers cut

CHIEF JUSTICE Sat Sharma no longer wants the Attorney General as the “conduit pipe” to the Cabinet. He also wants a constitutional change so he can recommend persons for “silk,” removing this task from the Attorney General. Speaking at the ceremonial opening of the 2003-2004 law term yesterday, CJ Sharma said it is not acceptable to have the interest of the Judiciary dependent on the idiosyncratic behaviour of the Attorney General. “There must be found a more effective way to have the problems of the Judiciary assessed and canvassed in the Cabinet by someone who is objective and independent. I mean no disrespect or discourtesy to the present Attorney General, or any of her predecessors.” Sharma agreed with a report on the independence of the Judiciary prepared by eminent jurist Justices Telford Georges in 2000 in which he (Georges) recommended that the established channel of communication between the Chief Justice  and the Cabinet and the Parliament, should be the Prime Minister.

Sharma added, “in conversation with the present Prime Minister, I have the distinct impression that this approach is one to which he subscribes.” But the Chief Justice does not feel that is the solution. “Who is to speak in Cabinet on behalf of the Judiciary?” he asked. He said the Judiciary is in the process of revisiting its traditional role. He pointed out that the only forum for the Chief Justice is the annual opening of the law term. He said the judiciary will embark on a programme to educate the public about its constitutional position, its role and function in society. Sharma said judges and magistrates will be free to tell members of the public what problems they are having in the judiciary and their suggested solutions. “The judges and magistrates, after all, exercise awesome powers over the lives of our citizens and they have a right to know if justice is not being delivered efficiently.”

Sharma said his conventional reticence may have to be reviewed as well. “Just as the Prime Minister sometimes addresses publicly the gravity of the situation in the country, so too should the Chief Justice have access to a similar facility to address the public about serious problems confronting the administration of justice,” he said. On the issue of silk, he said this “gift” has always been in the hands of the Government. He said the present position is that applications are made to the Attorney General who in turn consults with the Chief Justice.
A final list is prepared and submitted to Cabinet — Cabinet may or may not appoint. No reasons are given and according to the CJ, there is no transparency.

“I would suggest that the appointment should be made by the President on the advice of the Chief Justice after consultation with the Attorney General and the President of the Law Associa-tion and any other persons thought necessary.” He continued, “the fact that such an appointment should reside in the hands of the politician can be disconcerting as even a beneficiary might not be sure whether his appointment as Senior Counsel was on the basis of political patronage or merit.” CJ Sharma called on the various legal associations to join with him to change this. “The independence of the Bar and in turn, the independence of the Judiciary requires that no politician should be involved in the appointment of Senior Counsel.”