Priscilla Banner, President - Bar Association
"The Bar Association unanimously resolved, actually 3 items after some recitals. The first was to call upon the honourable Chief Justice to deliver the judgements in accordance to a timeline that his lordship himself had set. The second part of that resolution was if there was a failure by the honourable Chief Justice to deliver those judgements in accordance with the timeline, then the Bar Association call on the honourable Chief Justice to tender his resignation and if the honourable Chief Justice so refused, the resolution of the Bar is that the Bar shall file a complaint to the Judicial and Legal Services Commission regarding the failure to deliver the judgements in a timely manner and accordance with the constitutional duty to do so."

Jules Vasquez, reporter
"One would be tempted to say but on September 14th which was a few days ago and one day before the Bar meeting the Chief Justice provided a schedule. So then, would it not be respectful to simply first wait and see if he complies with the schedule before making a resolution that is quite stern which speaks about immediately tendering his resignation if he does not comply with the schedule. Why have you all included such a stern resolution?"

Priscilla Banner, President - Bar Association
"Jules, this decision was certainly two things: not lightly taken and not taken with the haste that that would seem to suggest. The Bar Association has been meeting with the honorable Chief Justice since 2014, both in formal and informal meetings, attempting to deal with judgments that were delayed."

"And the reason that the Bar very heavily had to decide this matter and not with any fanfare - it was a very heavy thing to do, but the reason the Bar felt that it was necessary is because that schedule, even not with the specific dates it has been provided before."

Jules Vasquez, reporter
"And not been adhere to before?"

Priscilla Banner, President - Bar Association
"And that is where the confidence level comes in. If you say to us that these litigants would get relief within a certain time, and you are no less than the chief of the court, we must be able to have confidence that that statement will be complied with. And that is why the Bar Association had to take this very as you would say "strict approach." But our concern is the litigants."

"I am sorry to say that in one case the claimant has died and he has not heard anything about his matter. And so this is the heaviness with which we approach. We want to do it with respect, but we have come to the point where we feel that this is the only choice that we have left to deal with this matter."

Jules Vasquez, reporter
"Now in the preamble, it uses some, again, string language. It says that the failure to discharge its constitutional duty to afford litigants a fair hearing within a reasonable time constitutes misbehavior in office. Are we to surmise that even if he adheres until the schedule and things normalize, the Chief Justice would have at some point be guilty or been to blame for misbehavior in office? How then are we to continue to have respect for the head of our judiciary?"

Priscilla Banner, President - Bar Association
"That is the statement made unanimously by the Bar. There is a question of confidence and I keep coming back to this word. You can lose confidence, but you can also rebuild it and that is what we are saying. We have lost confidence."

Jules Vasquez, reporter
"Are we able to have a situation where the Chief Justice is so to speak, under the whip of the Bar Association, which is saying that if he fails to meet the schedule and then he fails to resign, they are asking the Governor General to move him? Is that a feasible way forward? This is the head of the judiciary. He can't be answerable to you. Yes, he must perform, but I am saying he cannot be under your whip."

Priscilla Banner, President - Bar Association
"That's a fair comment well said. But I think what is important is that never forget that we are officers of the court and we must treat the court with respect. But we are answerable to the citizenry of this country. So the difficulty I have with that is that yes we must have respect for the courts, but we have a fundamental obligation to litigants to make sure that they get fairness and they get justice and they get it in good and reasonable time."

Jules Vasquez, reporter
"In any person, this would significantly diminish their professional reputation and no one's reputation is as jealously guarded as jurists. How then do we mend this if there is so much substantial bad blood? Clearly, you all have lost confidence in the man's word."

Priscilla Banner, President - Bar Association
"I think it is a work in progress. I am not sure that it is repairable. As it stands you can see the resolution and the resolution is very strongly worded. The question as to how we proceed from here, we have outlined a course of action in the resolution and at the moment all I can say is that that is the way we would proceed for present purposes."

Going back to 2014, the Bar Association or persons on its behalf have had at least four meetings with the Chief Justice to discuss the matter.

The schedule set out by the Chief Justice last Thursday sees him delivering judgements two at a time from September 18th through to December 15th, 2017. We could not confirm if the first two were delivered today.