Chief Justice cries foul

THE PROPER administration of justice requires more than an adequate and competent establishment of judges and magistrates, however important they may be. This vital public exercise must also have sufficient staffing and facilities and should be housed in buildings of such architectural stature as to be readily recognisable and capable of inspiring public confidence in the country’s judicial system.

Unfortunately, as far as the housing of our magistrates’ courts is concerned, we have fallen far short of that desirable standard. Over a long period of time we have neglected the maintenance of these court houses across the country to the extent that many of them became an embarrassment and disgrace to the administration of justice. Officers of these courts and practising attorneys had to suffer the indignity of rotten floors, leaking roofs, delapidated furnishings, inadequate space, poky chambers and overcrowded premises. Justice was being delivered in a kind of fish-market environment. And while within recent years an effort has been made to refurbish and rebuild some of these courts, the initiative was always a piecemeal one and, up to now, the situation has remained a most unsatisfactory one.

One understands then the annoyance of Chief Justice Sat Sharma who, under pressure from complaining attorneys, has chosen to make this issue a public one. Speaking to the press on Thursday the CJ declared: “We need to have an acceptable standard of justice, proper buildings and proper facilities, as well as proper conditions. We do not have to wait until 2020. Hopefully, we will achieve improved court buildings before that.” Mr Sharma expressed his concern after meeting with a representative team from among the southern attorneys who had protested the unsatisfactory conditions of the San Fernando Magistrates’ Court last week. He bewailed the fact that almost $1 million had been spent in renting two buildings on Court Street to relocate the court but this transfer had been stymied by bureaucratic problems. A statement from the Department of Court Administration disclosed that when the two buildings were available last July, the Ministry of Works and Transport were approached to provide architectural services to redesign both facilities but replied they were unable to assign an architect for the job.

As a result, the Judiciary has continued paying rent for buildings it has not been able to occupy. We consider this refusal by the Ministry quite absurd. Mr Sharma noted: “This is a very lame excuse. But the way things work in the civil service this is how it has to be.” According to the CJ, “we never had a full compliment of functioning courts in this country.” He appealed for a solution “before people start to take the law into their own hands and refuse to go to court.”  In a country that values the rule of law and is supposed to have respect for and confidence in the administration of justice, we believe that this is an intolerable situation. South attorney Subhas Panday felt that the Judiciary had been disrespected by other arms of the Government. As a result of all of this, the Judiciary has been able to obtain Cabinet approval for the appointment of a Court Buildings Architect and we can only hope that work on the relocating of the San Fernando Magistrates’ Court will begin soon. It is good to note also that the CJ’s outcry has borne immediate fruit as Attorney General John Jeremie yesterday offered to assist in ensuring that “all the magistrates’ courts across the country become fully functional as quickly as possible.” We can only take him at his word.