Govt passes Bills to roll back DPP’s powers, increase Appeal Court Judges

A bill to curtail the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to direct Magistrates to charge individuals and another that will increase the complement of Court of Appeal judges, are among the bills that were passed in the National Assembly on Monday.

On Monday, the Criminal Law (Procedure) Amendment Bill of 2022 was passed by the PPP/C Government in the National Assembly. The bill amends section 72 of the Criminal Law (Procedure) Act, which had previously allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to order the committal of a defendant to stand trial. Now, must make an application to a Judge to have someone recommitted to stand trial.
The passage of this bill has its origins in the Marcus Bisram case. Back in 2020, Bisram was rearrested on the direction of DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack. However, the DPP felt there was sufficient evidence to try him for the murder of carpenter Faiyaz Narinedatt. This was despite a magistrate ruling that there was no prima facie case against him.
Bisram would challenge the DPP’s actions at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which found that section 72 was unconstitutional. The government subsequently brought its amendment last year, with Attorney General Anil Nandlall assuring on Monday that there is a reason section 72 was left on the books for so long. And it has to do with a colonial era legal clause that preserved remnants of colonial law in Guyana’s constitution.
“We gained independence in 1966 and our constitution was then promulgated… so how then did a provision that appears, on its face, to be so fragrantly in violation of natural justice, of undermining the judiciary, escape the eyes of so many great judicial minds? It has to do with the existence of a provision in our constitution, which is referred to as and it exists in all Commonwealth constitutions, it is called the saving laws clause.”

“So, preexisting constitutional laws were allowed to be inconsistent with the constitution, by the constitution itself. But future laws cannot be inconsistent with the constitution, because they would be unconstitutional. That is also in the constitution,” Nandlall explained.

Court of Appeal Judges
The other piece of legislation, the Court of Appeal (Amendment) Bill 2022, was also passed on Monday. It will increase the number of Court of Appeal Judges from not less than two and not more than five, to not less than five and not more than nine. The Attorney General explained the reasoning for this.
“A larger complement of appellate judges also creates the potential for greater degree of specialization and cross specialization by judges. Such an innovation will not only improve efficiency and speed, but can lend to a higher quality of jurisprudence. In the same manner that Guyana has become one of the attractive investment destinations, we hope Guyana will be seen as an attractive destination for judicial appointments.”
“The expectation is not only to attract judges from the Caribbean, but the wider commonwealth and possibly the United Kingdom. This expectation is not grounded in any sinister design, But simply to attract quality and competence,” Nandlall said.
Nandlall has previously complained about the long delays surrounding Judges issuing rulings. Earlier this year, Nandlall had noted that Judges have been repeatedly delinquent in complying with the Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Act – a law enacted over a decade ago which, inter alia, sets the time limit for the delivery of oral or written decisions in civil cases.
Section 4 (1) of the Act states: “A Judge who presides at the trial of a civil case shall give a written or an oral decision and reasons for the decision at the conclusion of the hearing of the case or as soon as possible after the conclusion of the hearing but not later than 120 days from the date of the conclusion of the hearing.”
Section 5 of the statute further states: “Where the Court of Appeal or the Full Court hears an appeal, a Judge on behalf of the Court or each Judge of the Court shall give a written or an oral decision and reasons for the decision at the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal or as soon as possible after the conclusion of the hearing but not less than 30 days from the date of conclusion of the hearing.”
The Act, which also requires Justices to do a report in relation to their compliance with that very law and table same in the National Assembly annually, applies to Judges of the Court of Appeal, High Court, and the Full Court.
While he admitted that there is a shortage of Judges and no Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – the constitutional body responsible for the appointment of Judges – to ensure that vacancies are filled in the Judiciary and the Magistracy, Nandlall assured that “every effort” is being made to establish the JSC which expired in September 2017.
And once the JSC is reconstituted, Nandlall said Judges will be appointed as there is a Bill in the National Assembly that is intended to increase the number of Judges at the Court of Appeal threefold. “We are going to appoint an abundance of Judges required for the task at hand,” he assured.
“Once we accomplish that, then I believe that the Judiciary should be held accountable and those laws will have to be enforced and persons’ constitutional right to have a fair trial within a reasonable time,” he had said while pointing out that the Judiciary is a very important, and highly self-regulatory constitutional body. (G3)