Protecting the judiciary from politicians

We tend, almost as a rule, to be very tolerant of the shenanigans of our practising politicians and would greet their political antics and acrobatics with an expansive yawn or a bored shrug, as if to say: “What else do you expect from that lousy lot?” However, we become somewhat nervous and apprehensive when something seems amiss in or with the Judiciary.

Perhaps, instinctively, we recognise that the judiciary is one of the three independent and crucial pillars upon which our democratic republic presumably rests. The other two are the executive and the legislative branches of Government, which are not my present concern. However, I crave your indulgence gentle reader, if I may, to digress a bit to point out that even our political leaders do not seem to be able to distinguish the difference between “government and governance” and that leads them into colossal blunders. Now this is not a question of semantics or splitting hairs. So when a former prime minister of any country refers to the “governance of his country” it’s certainly not synonymous with the “government of his country,” though it must necessarily include substantial references to the textual and other aspects of “the government.”

It therefore seems to me that the status and function of the judiciary are very much a part of the governance of our country — a notion that more than one political leader has either been unaware of or has studiously ignored. Now to continue from where I digressed, the judicial function in our constitution is entrusted to the courts, which are responsible for administering justice “without fear or favour, malice or ill will,” as they like to put it. The judicial officers are expected to adjudicate according to the particular merits of the case before them and their best understanding of how the relevant law applies. Of course, one understands that there are instances when justice is tempered with mercy. To ensure the independence and impartiality of judges and those who perform judicial functions, their conditions of employment, security of tenure and other relevant factors must be such as to insulate them from political pressures or extraneous influences emanating from the legislature, executive, privileged or powerful sections of the community or any other discernible source.

Now, here’s a risk that I simply have to take even if I invite some flak from rum shops and fish markets when I suggest (with appropriate apologies to those offended) that judges should also be protected against the rum shop talk and fish market behaviour of politicians. In the recent past, I’ve heard of judges being lambasted on political platforms and political leaders even telling their public audiences that they cannot expect justice from the courts. For any number of reasons, judges cannot deal effectively with the scurrilous personal attacks and scandalous personal behaviour of politicians. I don’t suppose they have any other option than to ignore those louts and clowns and maintain their personal and professional dignity. On a memorable occasion, the then attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, presumably exposing his party’s strategy to pre-empt any anticipated adverse effect on their cause, dealt a low and unwarranted blow to impugn a judge’s character, credibility and judgment while also attempting to hold him up to public contempt and ridicule on the eve of his delivering his judgment.

Well, elements of the media (myself included) took up the cudgels, not on behalf of the judge, but out of indignation for the crass political tactics involved, without any thought for the dignity of and respect for our judicial system. For that political/judicial indiscretion, Ramesh got more blows than a Good Friday Bobolee. On a more serious note, our first Chief Justice, Sir Hugh Wooding, is reported to have observed that his salary as Chief Justice reminded him of what he paid as income tax on his previous earnings. The moral of the story was that the country couldn’t afford to pay for the legal services of Sir Hugh. He was already financially secure and was only doing his country a favour. A subsequent Chief Justice, Isaac Hyatali, commenting on the country’s inability to attract the best legal minds, spoke about “the judicial brandy being watered down.”

It’s, I suppose, well known that Basdeo Panday gave this country a roller-coaster ride that we shall never forget. Even one of his perennial political sponsors and apologists threw up his hands in obvious consternation, as he thought that the political pendulum had moved too far in the opposite direction and said “Panday was generally playing the arse.” What else is new? Of course I’m told that stronger language was used, but that will have to do. There was also the suggestion that “they should lock him up.” But since when political stupidity is a crime? On another more serious note, the confrontation between then attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and then Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide also gave the impression that, “... something was probably rotten, but it was not necessarily in the state of Denmark.” There appears to be never a dull moment in this neck of the woods. The first salvo came from the then Chief Justice who intimated that the AG was apparently involved in some scheme or other to “clip his (the CJ’s) wings and “rolling over” was not an option. There was much public speculation. Was it a clash between two “strong” personalities or a misunderstanding of respective roles? What, if any, principles were involved? What, if any, lessons have been learnt, in the event of a reoccurrence? — with different actors, of course.