Dear Editor,
The Bar Association’s latest message to Guyanese is a reminder of how out of touch and irrelevant this association has become. It said in a missive, “…The Bar Association in the premises wishes to remind and urge members of the public to exercise responsibility in making public statements touching and concerning the administration of justice, including judicial officers and thereby refrain from personal attacks, the use of threatening language which threaten the personal safety of judicial officers or otherwise and or making scandalous, inflammatory and unsubstantiated allegations against judicial officers.”
Sure enough, no one should threaten anyone else’s safety (Judge or layman) and, I believe the judiciary knows how to respond to threats well enough. But what’s the plan for Guyanese (or others) based in America for example? Those folks have unfettered liberty to fabricate and accuse all and sundry, and short of rendition, there seems to be no cure. Has the Bar Association any thoughts/ideas to share on this issue?
Then the Bar Association goes on to say that such statements have “the result of undermining confidence in the administration of justice.” I would suggest that the rate at which judgments are overturned at the Caribbean Court of Justice, it has done more damage to confidence in our judiciary than anything that is said or done on social media. Every Guyanese knows that if you appear in front of a judge, they will apply the letter of the law and make no excuses. Yet, these same judges openly disregard the law that binds them to writing decisions within a specified timeframe after delivering oral judgments, even pointed criticism from CCJ justices fall on deaf ears; I would be interested in the Bar Association’s thoughts on this issue instead of its threats to imprison the populace for contempt.
Members of the Bar Association must have witnessed thousands of cases of injustice over the years. It would be more useful if the association did more to correct these and urge legislative reforms than to issue a statement that would be better received from the Chief Justice or Chancellor. Heck, this statement comes across as ‘brown-nosing’, as if all the bowing and scraping in courtrooms is not enough.
In closing, I remain confident that criticism of the judiciary is an important part of democracy. How can we not comment on judgments that have national implications for our economic well-being, safety etc? I am equally confident that the judiciary can protect itself when it believes that the lawful lines have been crossed. For those times, defense attorneys will be needed.
Sincerely,
Robin Singh
