Parliament must endorse JLSC appointments

When I read the media report of the encomiums which were showered on the former Chief Magistrate during her welcome to the Bench at the San Fernando High Court, particularly by attorney Subash Panday, I could not but be shocked, disappointed and saddened at the manner of her resignation just 15 days after her appointment.

Indeed, I did conclude that this goodly woman must have been performing her duties as Chief Magistrate admirably and beyond reproach.

However, without being into the issue of omission or commission, what bothers me is the crass and undignified manner and lack of aplomb with which this matter was handled. We do pride ourselves to be an aspiring developed country and one would have expected that there would have been a more admirably dignified and less abrasive manner by which this unfortunate event, in which Ayers-Caesar, the Chief Justice and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) had found themselves, could have been resolved.

Opinion has been expressed by none other than the Law Association of a need to review the criteria and mechanism by which judges are appointed. The Chief Justice has been at pains to point out that these have not been static but have been developing and being refined in order to make for greater transparency and merit in the process since they were first put in place with independence.

We should note that even in the US (to which we have been tending to seek out corrective measures for ills which seem to appear in our Constitution) the system of appointing judges at all levels could be fraught with controversy. Thus, I do not expect that any new system which may be devised will satisfy all possible expectations. Consideration could however be given for establishing a joint committee of the Parliament to which all intending appointments which fall under the jurisdiction of the JLSC should be submitted for review and endorsement.

To err is human, to love divine.

ERROL OC CUPID Trincity, Tacarigua