Common sense not so common

When I saw a report that, “Parliament is to be removed to the zoo,” my initial reaction was, “Good Lord! What next?” On second thought, it occurred to me that the new location could ensure that Good old Santa Claus could more easily and appropriately deliver his “parliamentary gifts.” In case that some of our parliamentarians are too shy to acquaint Santa with their “parliamentary needs,” Santa, please be advised that, like the little boy, “all they need for Christmas are their two front teeth, their two front teeth... having kicked them out by putting their feet in their mouths, once too often. Now we tend, almost as a rule, to be very tolerant of the shenanigans and antics of our politicians, however even when something seems amiss with or in the judiciary, we become (or should become) concerned and apprehensive.

In my own simple way of thinking, I tend to regard the judiciary as an indispensable constitutional creation which, in totality, is greater than the sum of its parts. Perhaps, instinctively, we recognise that the judiciary is one of the three independent and crucial, formal pillars upon which our democratic Republic presumably rests. The other two are the executive and the legislative branches, which are not my present concern. Now even our political leaders appear not to know or remember the difference between “government and governance.” Which, inevitably, leads them into making colossal blunders. 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 not been aware of or has studiously ignored. The judicial function in our constitution is entrusted to the courts. The courts are responsible for administering justice, “without fear or favour, malice or ill will,” as they like to put it. The judicial officers of the law are expected to adjudicate according to the particular merits of the cases before them and their best understanding of how the relevant law applies. Of course, one understands that there can be extenuating circumstances when justice is tempered with mercy, as they say.

To ensure the independence and impartiality of judges and those who perform judicial functions, their conditions of employment, security of tenure and other relevant considerations 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 force. All this seems to be “common sense” and so obvious that it probably doesn’t even need to be said. But I recall a teacher, in the lower forms at school, pounding into what he was convinced was our little hard heads that, “common sense was one of the most uncommon things.” So we hear fly-by-night politicians and inflated political nonentities ask the rhetorical questions: “Who the hell do judges think they are that they expect “preferential treatment?” The judges certainly don’t see themselves as “holy cows” but the functions performed by them require certain entitlements so that the judiciary can function at an optimal level. And talking about “holy cows,” guess where in the system of government are you likely to find “unholy hogs,” if not worse. I make no apologies for saying that judges should be protected (certainly the judiciary) against the “rumshop talk and fish market behaviour of out-of-control politicians. It’s, I suppose, pointless asking politicians to accord respect to the judiciary and be wary of undermining the public confidence in the judiciary. Which reminds me of another saying I was tired of hearing from the elders, in their worldly wise way ie, “What do you expect from a bag of coals, but dust.”

In the recent past, I’ve heard of judges being lambasted on political platforms and political leaders even telling (or suggesting) to their public audiences that they cannot expect justice from the courts. They make those blanket statements, without even offering a shred of evidence to bolster the claim. What a bloomin’ shame! As any intelligent person knows, public confidence in the judicial system is most essential for its proper functioning. That is not to suggest that either judges or the judiciary should be above constructive and well-intentioned criticism or even reproach. For a variety of reasons, judges cannot deal effectively with the scurrilous personal attacks and scandalous personal behaviour of our politicians. I don’t suppose that the judges have any other option than to ignore those louts and political clowns and maintain their personal and professional dignity.

Apparently, politicians reserve the right to make utter asses of themselves in public, even to the extent of making a laughing stock of our country. What concerns, even disturbs me is the appalling mind-set from which the behavioural pattern, on the part of politicians vis-a-vis the judiciary derives. Can you imagine that the chairman of the Integrity Commission wrote the Prime Minister on three occasions in connection with outstanding “integrity forms” and got not even an acknowledgment. The chairman is a retired judge, then presumably performing a judicial function. Some may recall a homeless fellow named John Craig who applied to the colonial office for an appointment as high commissioner to somewhere or other and promptly received an acknowledgment and the assurance that his application will be considered together with others. I say no more on this, for now.

Our politicians, especially the political leaders, are prone to make a political football (small goal) out of every issue, not excluding the judiciary. The current executive now finds itself in a pickle, largely due to its own collective stupidity and lack of vision (2000). When the UNC was about to pass “integrity legislation” the then PNM opposition refused to support it unless “the net” was made as wide as possible to include, among others, the judges and sundry judicial officers. Today, they’ve changed their tune and consider that the net is now too wide and there’s need to narrow it.

The judges had hitherto presented their case in a dignified and reasoned manner. One of their cogent arguments was that their terms and conditions of service were being unilaterally changed to their disadvantage and that was unconstitutional. Even a legal novice could have grasped the significance of the point raised. But try arguing with those who are seemingly both deaf and dumb. Sometimes I wonder whether the executive avails itself of the best legal advice available to it. We may well be faced with a legal conundrum. The judges, like the rest of us, are entitled to the protection of the constitution. But can the judiciary be asked to proffer an opinion on a matter which so intimately involves their own interest — without being accused of “a conflict of interest?” The executive is now in “a monkey pants,” and how admirably does it fit!