Watch it, magistrates

MAGISTRATES are judicial officers who, like other members of the Bench, should be scrupulous and vigilant in preserving their independence. As dispensers of justice, they too must understand the nature of and the necessity for remaining aloof of external entanglements, particularly those involving the country’s politics. That is why we are quite disturbed by reports of their secret meeting with Opposition MP Gillian Lucky which was apparently arranged by Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls and held in his office last Friday. We understand the anguish which magistrates may feel over the prospect of declaring their assets if the forms and regulations of the Integrity Act become effective, but we are dismayed that they would so readily compromise their independence by summoning an Opposition MP to have active discussions on the matter, possibly with a view to undertaking some kind of protest action. Instead of providing the proper guidance in this issue, the Chief Magistrate, in our view, has committed an act of serious irresponsibility in summoning the Opposition MP to a clandestine meeting with the magistrates. According to reports, Lucky told the meeting that she was there in her capacity as MP for Pointe-a-Pierre and brought greetings from her political leader Basdeo Panday.

At this stage, it also seemed quite inappropriate for the magistrates to be meeting with Attorney General John Jeremie to inform him that they intended to hold discussions with the government and the opposition about the demands of the Integrity Act. They would have been wise simply to take the lead provided by judges who were careful not go beyond an expression of their disapproval of what the Act is demanding of them. Based on such feelings and our own view of the matter, we came out quite positively in support of the judges, making out a case for their exemption. Why didn’t the magistrates simply associate themselves with the stand taken by members of the Judiciary, voicing their opinion and leaving the matter there? In this way, they would have presented their views to the authorities and public without compromising their independent status. In any case, if the magistrates feel aggrieved and they have a legal opinion that the Act is unconstitutional, then they are free to seek a remedy in the courts.

While we are disturbed by the action of the magistrates we are even more dismayed by the announcement of the Attorney General and the Chief Justice that the matter has been resolved. Since they have chosen not to give any details, we are forced to ask, how has an issue of such gravity been settled? Without an explanation, what is the public now to think, that it is quite acceptable for  magistrates to engage in secret talks with opposition politicians on measures about which they are unhappy? That the separation of powers and independence of judicial officers are principles which can be conveniently breached? We are also surprised with the verdict delivered by the Chief Justice who said he had conducted an investigation into the meeting and found no impropriety. He apparently saw no need to censure, admonish or warn the magistrates, particularly Mr McNicolls, or even to remind them of the quality of independence they are required to maintain. This newspaper is concerned about the ease with which crucial principles of our democracy are being pushed aside by responsible public officers and officials who should know better. We now sound a warning which we hope they will heed.