Ayers-Caesar’s appointment as Judge

In a statement yesterday, president of the association Douglas Mendes SC said, “We do however have immediate concerns about the fact that a judge was appointed and took up office leaving behind outstanding, part-heard matters.” He said the association will be seeking to engage Chief Justice Ivor Archie, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions over the coming days “to assist in finding a workable solution.” The issue was raised last week by Senior Counsel Israel Khan when he appeared before Deputy Chief Magistrate Maria Busby Earle-Caddle in the private complaint brought by the Commission of Inquiry into the July 1990 attempted coup against Jamaat al Muslimeen leader Yasin Abu Bakr .

The matter was being heard by Ayers-Caesar and Khan expressed fear that the case would have to be restarted. He accused Archie and the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) - the body which appoints judges - of being selfish and highly irresponsible in elevating the former chief magistrate to the Supreme Court with cases still part-heard before her .

In a statement, the Judiciary’s Court Protocol and Information Manager Alicia Carter-Fisher assured that the magistrates court would not be adversely affected .

Carter-Fisher said there were no ongoing preliminary inquiries before Ayers-Caesar before her elevation .

She, however, had before her paper committals which could be continued by another magistrate .

She said it was up to the Office of the DPP to decide whether or not those matters are to be prosecuted on a case-by-case basis and that those matters which the DPP decided to prosecute “will be restarted.” However, Mendes said it was unfair that anyone should suffer the expense and anxiety of an avoidable repeat trial .

“The full extent of the prejudice which may have been caused is not yet known,” he said .

Mendes assured that the association was committed to transparency and accountability in the selection and appointment of judges .

“In that regard, we do appreciate that the relative secrecy in which appointments to the judiciary are currently made has the potential to encourage suspicion and amplify disquiet especially in the darkness of a vacuum of information .

For the moment, though, the Constitution does not require more and the process is one which has been in existence since independence.” He said it “may be that the time has come” to re-evaluate current arrangements with a view to ensuring greater transparency and accountability and to buttress confidence in the process .

“We recognise the right of every citizen to pose legitimate questions regarding appointments to the judiciary, even if done forcefully, but always respectfully. Care must be taken, however, in the manner of questioning decisions made by the Commission as there is an imperceptible and elusive line beyond which the expression of even genuine disagreement may undermine the confidence which the public must continue to have in the administration of justice.”