Damage done

Without an independent Judiciary, the system of democracy loses its most vital artery. Yet, judging from recent events, it is clear there is little desire to truly work towards bettering things. We have seen a series of attacks on the Judiciary by persons tied to Government (insinuating one judge is a “UNC” judge); by the Opposition (lashing out at the Court of Appeal and even administrative staff over the hearing of an appeal); and by lawyers from all walks of life themselves (a motion of no-confidence was passed against Chief Justice Ivor Archie and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) for matters that have no true bearing on the real problems facing the system).

Some see the resignations of JLSC Humphrey Stollmeyer and Roger Hamel-Smith – both retired jurists – as a victory for democracy and public accountability. In fact, it is the opposite, representing the latest chapter in an unrelenting campaign of intimidation which culminated in a closed-door meeting of a few hundred attorneys (out of thousands) voting to oust the officials who preside over cases in which they appear.

The real questions raised by the Marcia Ayers-Caesar appointment and resignation relate to the resources which are at the disposal of the JLSC and the Judiciary as a whole. They also relate to the selection criteria for persons becoming judges and the hierarchy in the legal system. Who should be a judge? Who should be a silk or senior counsel? Who should be a senior prosecutor? If we demand transparency for one appointment, let us have transparency for them all.

And let us also talk about why there is a need to abolish the preliminary inquiry, a procedure which delays justice for years, decades, benefiting only the lawyers who appear in them.

There is also the huge problem of overcrowded jails and of the violation of the rights of children incarcerated in government facilities as the State drags its feet administration after administration on the question of autonomous funding.

Not satisfied with all these problems, lawyers themselves are now seeking to convince us that by hounding out office-holders whom they do not like they are able to restore confidence in this institution.

But no citizen will be assured by a Judiciary that buckles to extraneous politics.

Our position on this debacle has always been for good sense to prevail.

We have never thought that the matter should be a license to mash up the place far less the Judiciary of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. We maintain our position.

We have seen quite a torrid campaign.

While the official release from President’s House this week restricted Hamel Smith’s resignation to “matters personal to me” information on Stollmeyer was more detailed in describing the atmosphere that caused him to throw in the towel, not from just the JLSC but from public life. Stollmeyer said, “Recent events have given me reason to pause and reflect upon my commitment to public life and duty to my country. It has become increasingly obvious that fulfilling that duty or those duties, faces great difficulty in light of the ever- increasing tendency in our society to criticise and condemn unjustifiably… those who undertake the task of serving.” The Judiciary now steps even closer to turmoil at the very moment it is needed most. Even if the vacancies which arise are filled quickly, the damage is already done. Whoever is appointed in these circumstances will be hostage to the belief that a select few lawyers can remove the officials who lead an institution, an institution that is useless without independence.