Bringing Justice down

Yet, we see the call for the resignation of Chief Justice Ivor Archie and the members of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission as woefully disproportionate to the issues under consideration – a position we have taken since the start of this controversy and which we maintain. What motives are at play? Whether we think the matter vexatious or not, a vote is still a vote and 285 to 150 is a clear enough result. However, the resolution itself already being well out of proportion to the offences alleged (which amount to: a lack of perfect vetting by a non-recruiting, judicially-oriented constitutional body with limited resources, and critiques of press releases) it would also be a grave error to place undue weight on the resolution of no-confidence itself. There are about 2,186 persons on the roll of attorneys. And more may also be non-practising members of the association. Which means it can hardly be said there is consensus in the legal fraternity on this issue.

However, this is a democracy and it should not matter whether the view adopted is a minority one. Nor should it matter that the turnout of the meeting was not 100 per cent. What does matter are the issues and the realities facing the criminal justice system right now.

Should a Chief Justice and the JLSC resign due to problems with regard to the ability of a post-holder to take up a judgeship? The police officer who killed Tamir Rice (12-year old African American boy in Cleveland Ohio almost four years ago) was last week fired because it was discovered, years later, that he did not give adequate disclosure upon recruitment. Are we to then expect the city of Cleveland to resign too for hiring him? Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley, having already gone on record to say he will not trigger proceedings to remove the Chief Justice, the resolution of no-confidence amounted to an attempt to exert pressure on the judge at the head of the Judiciary as well as the jurists and public servants who sit on the JLSC. They have begun to see their reputations been dragged around in this unhealthy mire, as if it were never their intention to serve their country with dignity.

The dangers of this very public game to law and order cannot be overstated.

The one good thing from all of the discourse over judicial appointments in recent years has been the gradual reform of the process. We have seen unprecedented advertising of job vacancies in the Judiciary; that light has been shed on the normally totally secretive process by which judges are appointed under the workings of the Constitutional offices that govern it.

Make no mistake. Removal of the Chief Justice would not only be disproportionate, it would be reckless. It would be a recipe for disaster. There would be a vacancy in the key independent institution of the Judiciary at the moment when it is needed now more than ever as we battle the scourge of crime amid an economic downturn.

Such a state of affairs would also amount to a troubling repeat of history: it would be the second imbroglio in a row for a sitting Chief Justice after the Sharma affair.

The damage to the idea of our legal system in the public imagination would be irreparable.

Lawyers have said this is not a Constitutional matter. That the issue is accountability. But that is precisely what we are seeing in this instance. The Chief Justice should take charge and all stakeholders should work to improve the system of law and order - inclusive of appointments - with him. Not bring the Hall of Justice down