Judges “completely” ignoring statutory timeframe for issuing decisions – AG

…says when more Judges are appointed, Judiciary would be held accountable

By Feona Morrison

Judges are held to a very high standard. So, should they not be held accountable when they break the very laws they have sworn to uphold? Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall’s answer to this question is, of course, yes.
According to the Senior Counsel, 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.
He made this disclosure while recently discussing the status of constitutional reform and electoral changes in Guyana on the social media programme The Guyana Dialogue.
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.
But there has been disregard for this law, the Attorney General has emphasised, stating, “that legislation has been completely ignored.”
Going forward, he stressed that this cannot continue in Guyana’s modern democracy.

Shortage of Judges
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 said while pointing out that the Judiciary is a very important, and highly self-regulatory constitutional body.
According to him, the workings of the Judiciary would be reviewed. “The way the Judiciary functions. There are mechanisms in place that hold the Judiciary to certain standards.”
Like every other institution in the modern world, the Attorney General explained that the Judiciary is answerable and must be held accountable for how it conducts itself and how it conducts its business.
In this regard, speed and efficiency, he noted, are part and parcel of a justice system, reminding of the aphorism “justice delayed is justice denied”.
According to the Legal Affairs Minister, in the same manner, wherein the Executive and Legislature are under pressure to be more accountable, efficient, and transparent in their daily functions, the Judiciary must similarly be pressured.
The Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary are the three branches of Government. Under the separation of powers—a doctrine of constitutional law—the mechanisms of governance are divided into these three branches, each with separate, independent powers and responsibilities.
“The same way Parliament is being pressured to deliver more legislation, to have greater scrutiny over Executive conduct, for the Public Accounts Committee to delve deeper into the Auditor General’s Report so that the financial irregularities are exposed and persons are charged…. the same way the Judiciary has to be made subject to similar initiatives in order to extract from it, the level of transparency and efficiency that is consistent with modern realities in a democratic society,” he reasoned.
“In accordance with Article 197 (3) of the Constitution, a Judge may be removed from office for, among other reasons, persistently failing to give written or oral decision and reasons for the decisions within the time specified in this Act,” Section 6 of the Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Act.
The above constitutional provision sets out that a Judge may be removed from office only for inability to perform functions of his or her office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misbehaviour or for persistently not writing decisions or for continuously failing to give decisions and reasons therefor within such time as may be specified by Parliament.
This is not the first time the Attorney General has called on Judges to obey the Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Act; a similar appeal was made by him in October 2021.
Weighing in on the issue, Senior Counsel KA Juman-Yassin had told another section of the media that ensuring compliance with this Act is the sole responsibility of the Chancellor of the Judiciary.
In addition to time limits for issuing decisions and penalties for non-compliance, the Act provides for a case to be tried as expeditiously as possible in an endeavour to conclude the case within such time as the complexity and the relevant evidence necessitate. (G1)