For decades, there have been concerns about the strength, effectiveness and efficiency of Guyana’s Judiciary and its ability to discharge its functions with the highest level of independence.
These concerns have never disappeared despite the fact that there have been successful efforts, from all parties involved especially successive Governments, to modernize the functions of the judiciary, insulate its officers from political and other forms of interference, and professionalize its operations in line with the developments taking place in the wider world with respect to the advancement in technologies and the shifting social world order.
The modernisation of the judiciary has also been impacted by alternative interpretations of certain religious beliefs and the shift in cultural norms and traditions which are redefining criminality, humanity and the concepts of moral and social justice which are the bedrock and foundation of modern democratic societies and independent judiciaries, the world over.
In Guyana’s case, the judiciary plays the most important role as the defender of the public’s interest and the custodian of the Constitution. The framers of this country’s codified and supreme laws ensured that enough provisions were made to safeguard the judiciary from the whims and fancies of politicians and the influence of the wealthy.
All Guyanese are, therefore, equal before the law and deserving of equity and fairness whenever they are the subject of judicial action regardless of their race, sexual orientation to a limited extent, creed or religion beliefs.
Our judicial officers at every level of the Judiciary are schooled, baptized and re-cultured to understand the importance of the role they play in safeguarding the rights of the ordinary citizens from the excesses of the powerful. They are also encouraged to reject any inducement or attempt to interfere with the dispatch of their duties because of the sensitive and untenable position in which it places the judiciary and the reputation of those who serve within its hierarchy.
The Judiciary at home and abroad knows too well that it has a commitment to discipline those who seek to unjustly malign its character, image or reputation by even suggesting that it is somehow compromised or incapable of delivering independent judgment free from interference unless evidence and facts could be provided.
It is in this context that the recent statements made by senior functionaries in the coalition Government about the perceived outcome of the Sovereignty of the People Case, the charges brought against former Government Ministers of the Peoples Progressive Party Civic Administration, and a slew of other private charges filed against opposition politicians must be analyzed and contextualized.
The utterances are worrying because they paint the picture that the current Government and executive has some perceived or real power or even influence over how the court is handling these specific matters.
The fact that Ministers of Government believe that they can make statements which suggest that they have inside “information” undermines the integrity of the decision in the minds of some even if it was arrived at within the confines of reasonable law and jurisprudence.
Even a blanket rebuke or caution from the local and regional courts would have eased the minds of an understandably worried populace who continue to fear that the Government may be exhorting undue influence over not only supposedly state-owned independent agencies like the Special Organised Unit, and Special Assets Recovery Agency et al but now the sections of the judiciary, constitutional judicial offices like that of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Caribbean Court of Justice.
The judiciary here must not allow ‘loose statements’ made by politicians or any citizen publicly to go unchallenged within Guyana’s fragile democracy because of the concomitant implications that may follow if the public loses confidence in its ability to discharge its functions without duress or partisanship.
There must be a clear line drawn between the executive and the judiciary.
