An injudicious Judiciary?

First, re the JLSC press statement of May 10, on what basis are candidates for judicial office shortlisted? If candidates are “routinely asked” for “full and frank disclosure” of “their outstanding professional commitments,” and if “assurance” is sought that the “prospective appointee (is) not leaving behind a body of unfinished work,” was Marcia Ayres-Caesar asked in her interview (in January) about any part-heard matters she might have?

If she was, why would she say in her letter of May 19 to President Carmona that it was only on April 10, several weeks after she had been informed on March 17 of her selection for appointment as a judge, and a mere two days before her swearing-in, that the CJ “for the first time (my emphasis) enquired (of her) whether or not (she) had any part-heard matters?” What is the truth?

Why is it “impractical for the JLSC to delve into the case files of a successful applicant from the Magistracy?”

Because the applicant is already successful, as the sentence implies? Therefore, on what judicial (and judicious) basis was the appointment made if the relevant files were not examined?

Is it really sensible to say that “reasonable ‘due diligence’ is satisfied by seeking an assurance that the appointee has done” everything necessary in readiness to assume duty? And since the JLSC has hitherto “regarded the word of a judicial officer as sufficient” — a scarcely-veiled criticism of Ayres-Caesar (and perhaps baseless, given her version of events) — how does the commission plan to operate from now on?

Why is the computerisation of Magistracy records only now being addressed “as a matter of priority?” Why have these records been kept manually all this time?

Why, in mid-2017, is it impossible “to determine the state of any magistrate’s part-heard list” except by “physically examin(ing) the case sheets for each district to which (the) magistrate has been assigned?”

Does this mean that the JLSC did not have before it the up-to-date (or any) information on the performance of the applicant magistrates? But I forget: “the word of a judicial officer (has up to now) been sufficient.” If the word is sought. Or volunteered.

Second, following what it called a “meeting of key stakeholders (on May 24) to determine the way forward for the (Ayres-Caesar) partheard matters,” the Judiciary issued a media release on May 25 affirming that “(c)onsensus (had been) reached, and the meeting…agreed to have all (the) matters restarted ‘de novo’.

” What logical nexus is there between that statement and the letter of June 20 from the CJ’s attorney to Anand Ramlogan saying that the May 25 release “was regrettably not worded as it should have been” (how should it have been?), and that the May 24 meeting was held “simply to obtain the views of the persons in attendance, not to make a decision (on the issue)?” And what did the acting Chief Magistrate mean when she said on June 1 that she had her “instructions” to restart the matters? Who instructed her to do so? On what authority?

Third, Ayres-Caesar says she dismissed 16 outstanding cases on March 22, but accounts for only six. What of the other ten? She says also she was “surprised” by the CJ’s April 10 question on her part-heard matters (which would support her claim that she had not previously been asked) because, inter alia, “there is a Court Statistical Unit which collates monthly reports on each judicial officer and then submits them to the (CJ).

” But didn’t the JLSC say on May 10 that “there is no single file (on a magistrate’s part-heard list) that can simply be retrieved and examined at a moment’s notice?” Where then do these monthly reports go?

Ayres-Caesar says she was told on April 11 by the PoS Court Notetaking Unit that she had 28 matters outstanding (in total or in PoS only?). She “identified the status of each matter from (her) memory…” From memory! Is this how our courts function?

Then on April 25 she was informed she really had 52 partheard matters. (The Judiciary release of May 25 says 53.) Incredibly, she explains her original non-mention of the additional 24 (or 25) by saying that she “had not been able to remember all the matters…” Remember?

Memory again, and a very faulty one indeed. Have parties appearing before her been affected by such lapses?

The May 10 JLSC press release said that it is “the p r o f e s - s i o n a l r e s p on - sibility of every judicial officer… to keep track of his/her caseload.”