Dear Editor,
When the question is put applicable to the above topic, it explains that the Executive and Legislature branches of Governments most often do their utmost to provide Laws that guarantee ‘a better life’ for all the people. The Judiciary is responsible for interpretation and enforcement of the laws justly as originated from the constitution. In Guyana, are Judges intentionally, or in ignorance, ‘missing the mark?’ some do! Points of reference:
1. Dataram’s trial escape to Suriname was explained as a lack-of-confidence to obtain a fair trial by a particular Judge.
2. A known litigant was granted ‘nothing’ by a High Court Justice who allowed the late start of a hearing against the State – The Guyana Police Force. The State’s Attorney was one hour late, was unprepared for the trial, which even though in default, the Justice took away the right-of-recourse [appeal] from the Complainant in a ruling as un-redeemable. The not listened-to facts are that the Police was guilty of intentional ‘TORT’ wrongs done to the Plaintiff.
3. An accused woman was verbally abused by a Magistrate in the environment of a Courthouse on the East Coast of Demerara, for which he was disciplined.
How many more of such occurrences over the past years took place in Guyana’s courthouses? That hurt the Governments and distressed our People.
A late USA President Alexander Hamilton wrote about the Judiciary: “The propriety of the institution is not disputed relative to the manner of constituting it”. He further noted that “the Courts on the pretence of repugnance may substitute the constitutional intentions of the Legislature”. Therefore, Governments can have no less a responsibility than to appoint fit characters [Judges] of qualified capable hands to administer justice with utility and dignity. Moon does run til day ketch am!
Editor, the time for a National Judiciary Retreat [Judges, Magistrates, and Justices] is very, very long overdue. The Government – His Excellency, the Head of the Legislature, the Speaker of the House and the Chancellor ought to ensure this fulfilment for guidance and instructions to all judicial officials to enhance just, responsible and trustworthy performance in all Courts.
Last but not least, the Nation must be cognizant that the Chancellor of the Judiciary is an honourable person [Justice Carl Singh]. Without all the bad reports to his distinguished office about the many flaws of Judges (unfairness, verbal abuse, bribes, and other forms of corruption including disrespect) the immediate purge and improvements of Guyana’s Judiciary can be readily at-hand to help and not hurt anyone as professional standards demand.
About the bill-of-rights and due-process of law; the said USA late President again wrote: “the Courts’ unwillingness to extend the protections from the Governments of individual rights, are often limited to explicit constitutional language”.
The late President Hamilton also stated “considerate men ought to fortify against the tempers of the Courts to be certain that they do not become victims of the spirit-of-injustice.”
In consideration as opinions, USA Supreme Court the late Chief Justice Marshall put the question: “if a man has a right and that right has been violated; do the Laws offer him a remedy?” He established such must be shown as an exercise of jurisdiction for that jurisdiction. Hence, no authority [judge] is ultimatum to deny the right-of-recourse through review/appeal to the Head within his Courts and/or within Superior Courts of higher jurisdictions. The Judiciary must build Guyana impartially with devotion for His /Her Worship; your Honour as designated.
Sincerely,
Arnold W Christiani
[M-imh], UK
(Ex) Army Captain
Legal Assistant/
Consultant
