Litigate to death

That may be so, but where has the long-term planning been that would suppress political expediency to take the necessary decisions in the interest of robust socio-economic development. Is that what we are seeing now? We are not so sure.

From those purporting to represent the interests of workers, can it really be that negotiating largely through grandstanding and ultimatums yields the kind of results that secures jobs and allows us to plan futures for our children? BP has indeed taken its rig and gone.

The National Tripartite Advisory Council, potentially one of the more constructive initiatives for national development, has fallen apart. Not even a joint select committee of Parliament, intended to seek the truth on behalf of the public and to facilitate interaction between all interested parties on issues of national interest, in this case the performance of State enterprises, has been able to successfully summon the board members of the Education Facilities Company.

On issues of citizen security, we still await the permanent appointment of a Commissioner of Police.

That too seems to be tied up in litigation. Delays and lack of clarity in the process of appointing the commissioner undermines confidence in the Police Service. In the meantime, murder rates certainly appear to be on the increase, despite indications that serious crimes are on the decline.

Citizens are forced through self-preservation to take responsibility for their own safety by curtailing normal human interaction, and women at least are told to make better choices, undermining even further their confidence in accessing justice. If an already overburdened criminal justice system is inclined to believe that women are to blame for the violence meted out to them, why bother to seek redress? Also, according to recent reports, there are glaring gaps in the protection mechanisms for children.

Where does one turn to seek the reassurance of stable democratic institutions on which we can rely to work in our interest? Everywhere there seems to be institutional crisis, but where institutions stumble in delivery of the mandate or struggle to perform, or for that matter fail to meet expectations, how can it be in our best interest to destroy it completely? In the case of the Judiciary imbroglio, for whom does the bell toll if not for us all? Where one side is seen to be going in for the kill with the singular objective of promoting a political agenda, and the other appears to be unwilling or unable to explain itself satisfactorily enough to avoid a legal challenge, there are no winners. Litigation to block the appointment of two new judges does not serve the interest of an anxious public.

Provided a platform by the recent Privy Council judgment (AG v Dumas) supporting the right of citizens to hold public officials accountable, former UNC senator Devant Maharaj and his team of lawyers are using the courts to challenge decisions like the appointment of judges and the application of property tax, which quite likely could have been less contentiously handled otherwise.

Indeed, the right of citizens to demand accountability is a critical aspect of a democracy, but litigation does not replace leadership.

What we seek in this case is definitive action in response to a legitimate concern about process that will give us renewed confidence in the rule of law, and particularly in the capacity of the Judiciary as a key aspect of our democratic way of life.