JUDGES MUST ACCOUNT

Last Friday, Attorney General John Jeremie informed the Parliament that judges and magistrates would be exempted from the reporting requirements of the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000. In so doing, Mr Jeremie was tacitly admitting that the PNM, which was in Opposition at the time the Act was passed, had erred. As originally drafted by the UNC Administration, the revamped Integrity Act had excluded judicial officers. It was the Opposition PNM which called for judges to be included among the widened range of public officers who would have to declare their assets to the Integrity Commission — a request the UNC acceded to.

But now that the PNM is in office, its leading members seem to have changed their collective mind. Prime Minister Patrick Manning is on record as wanting to also exclude board members of State enterprises, on the interesting grounds that having to declare their assets would prevent the most competent persons from serving on said boards. Mr Jeremie has advised the Cabinet that the provisions of the Act which include judges are unconstitutional, and said that he had sought advice from the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC), a former chief justice, and several senior counsels. Exactly what this advice was, however, Mr Jeremie did not deign to inform the Parliament nor, by extension, the citizens of the country.

He did emphasise, though, that the Government’s decision did not mean “that the Cabinet is in any way endorsing the position that judicial officers are a law unto themselves or that they should not be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny in respect of which all other significant public office holders and politicians are held.” But, given the recent scandals in several Regional Health Authorities, the questions over the Scarborough hospital construction, and the debacle of the Statutory Authorities Service Commission in the Devant Maharaj case, Mr Jeremie’s words clang with irony. The truth is, the Integrity Commission itself needs to become more proactive in overseeing those persons it does wield authority over. And, in similar fashion, the JLSC now needs to demonstrate that it is serious about overseeing the performance of judges and magistrates and, if it does not have the resources or the power to discharge such duties effectively, be given both.

Indeed, Mr Jeremie has already stated that legislation to strengthen the JLSC will be necessary, while Opposition Chief Whip Ganga Singh has promised that the UNC will give its support. It is safe to assume, however, that any promise from the Opposition is provisional. Legislation which affects judicial officers must possess one key element: that the judiciary remains insulated from interference by the executive. Presumably, there will be wide consultation before any such Bill is drafted. At the same time, judges and magistrates must not assume that the status quo can stand. It is true that citizens, to a large extent, retain confidence in the judiciary. But, if there were not questions about judicial officers before, the Government’s decision to exclude them from the Integrity Act has now raised such concerns.

The simple fact is, judges and magistrates occupy a public office. As such, they must be accountable to the citizenry. And, far more than any other public officers, whether politicians or State technocrats, citizens expect judicial officers to be persons of the highest integrity. Indeed, the judges’ vehement protest in 2000 over their inclusion in the Integrity Act may have already damaged their image, for the average person would not have been concerned about constitutional niceties: they would have wondered what judges have to hide. By helping create legislation to oversee the judiciary, judges and magistrates will thus be helping to restore and elevate their reputation. And, at a time when all our fundamental institutions seem to be in turmoil, it is probably wise for the judiciary to take in front.