Email

Print

And while debating the amendment to the Indictable Procedure Bill, discussions across the floor inevitably turned to the tension that’s currently being experienced between the judiciary and the executive. The man at the center of it is the Attorney General; he was singled out in a statement by the judges of the Supreme Court as opening up the judiciary to criticism. Representative for Fort George Said Musa said that the problems with crime come right back to what he characterized as divisive statements made by Elrington – which led to a much broader discussion.

Rt. Hon. Said Musa, Fort George Area Rep.
“Are we not reaping the whirlwind of he who called for sustained civil disobedience. Are we not reaping the whirlwind when the leader of the bar in our country the Honourable Attorney General would openly in court issue this attack on the judges. They themselves called in an unprecedented public statement, a wholesale attack on the judiciary.”

Hon. Dean Barrow, Prime Minister
“I object to that, Mr. Speaker on a point of order. The Attorney General is in an invidious position and probably would not want to defend himself but that is a complete distortion. To suggest that the Attorney General….”

Rt. Hon. Said Musa,
“That is not a point of order.”

Hon. Dean Barrow,
“You dah the Speaker now? You want to be leader of the opposition, you want to speaker too? You want to be speaker too? He is in fact suggesting that the Attorney General was guilty of an offence in terms of saying the Attorney General attacked the judiciary. It is untrue and for that reason alone in my respectful submission Mr. Speaker, he ought not be allowed to continue with it. But it also is impugning the integrity of the Attorney General and he is not allowed to do that.”

Rt. Hon. Said Musa,
“Mr. Speaker it is not me that is saying it. It was said by all the judges of the Supreme Court and I quote, ‘the Attorney General launched a wholesale attack on the judiciary and the magistracy,’ what they called an open and clear call to undermine the judiciary and what I would consider affecting the confidence in the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.”

Hon. Wilfred “Sedi” Elrington, Attorney General
“Nothing can be further from the truth and that saddens me so much. It makes me so very sad because nothing can be further from the truth. Shortly after I got elected and was made Attorney General, I received a written request from the Bar Association asking me to ask some of the judges to step down, to resign because they were not functioning. They were not giving their judgements and in some cases judgements had not been given for 11 years, some cases for 12 years. There are cases where people died before their cases were resolved.

Of course I had made complaints before in fact the appointment of some of the judges because I knew from the calibre of judges that were being selected that we would have problems. This was not anything new and that is confirmed by in fact the action taken by the Bar Association at that time. But I subsequently learned that even without coming to me, the Bar Association made another initiative against the judiciary because they couldn’t get decisions which they needed to have.

The system works efficiently if in fact cases that go before the court can be disposed of quickly. That gives everybody justice but there have been judicial pronouncements which suggest that when decisions are delayed, that is justice denied and it could constitute misconduct. It was on that basis I imagine that the members of the Bar decide to take another initiative to get the situation resolved. It has nothing to do with me. I had in fact at the opening made the statement to the effect that I had been informed by people in very high positions that it was in their view that our Magistrate Court was not given justice. That was told me by very senior judicial personnel in our jurisdiction. I made mention of it because it is a matter of public concern if in fact the Magistrate’s Court which deals with 90% of the cases are not dispensing justice. Then that is a matter of real concern.”

Jules Vasquez,
“One senses there is an increasing chafing between the executive and judiciary. We heard again today the comments from the Attorney General underscoring the antipathy that he has towards what he feels is mediocrity in the courts and that Magistracy as well. Do you feel that you need to intervene to make for some peacemaking?”

Hon. Dean Barrow, Prime Minister
“No I don’t think that is so. The Attorney General is making the point that he has not said anything that the Bar Association hasn’t said and that his remarks were in fact prompted by complaints that the Bar Association made. He is telling us that there has been a most recent initiative of the Bar Association, there was some meeting to consider a new resolution I think two weeks ago. So that in my view all the Attorney General has done is to highlight in the same vein as the Bar has done, some of the shortcomings. I don’t think that there is any war declared or otherwise between the Attorney General and the judiciary.”

Jules Vasquez,
“Have you seen the statement from the judges of the Supreme Court singling out the Attorney General for attacking them and undermining public confidence in the judiciary?”

Hon. Dean Barrow,
“No I haven’t but I will say that I don’t believe that the Attorney General has attacked the judiciary. I didn’t realize that lately or latterly the judiciary has issued a statement. I really wasn’t aware.”

Jules Vasquez,
“They issued a statement this week, the first ever press release I’ve seen from the judiciary.”

Hon. Dean Barrow,
“Well I find that unusual indeed but I don’t know, that could not have been prompted by anything that the Attorney General did or so said recently because as far as I know he hasn’t done or said anything.”

Jules Vasquez,
“Well it seems it is in response to the entire movement as regards the Bar Association but it plainly says that it began with the Attorney General as the titular head of the Bar making last year’s attack and it singled him out for censure.”

Hon. Dean Barrow,
“Well I think that’s unfortunate. I don’t believe that that is helpful. I am saying that what the Attorney General did say was way back in January amounted to truth telling as far as the Attorney General is concerned and he was not in my view suggesting that in anyway the judiciary doesn’t offer independent justice. He was complaining about delays and he was making the point as I understand it that there is an old adage and no doubt a true adage that says justice delayed is justice denied. But I didn’t interpret it as an attack on the judiciary. If the judiciary interprets it in that way then I suppose he who feels it knows it.

But we are going to be alright. Little stresses, little strains that the relationship is perhaps more frayed than I thought between the AG and the judiciary is unfortunate but it is not reached the stage where the AG isn’t talking to the CJ or not talking to the judiciary so I don’t see the need for me to intervene at all.”