The Court of Appeal has ruled that there is nothing wrong with High Court Judges being appointed to one year contracts.
At first glance, that might appear as a very trivial conclusion, but it's a victory for the Barrow Administration which has been criticized by
opponents who have suggested that the Prime Minister amended the law so that the Cabinet could have more direct influence on the judiciary.
That would go against the separation of powers principle in which one branch of Government is trying to exert authority over another. The Bar
Association took the Government to court arguing that the constitutional amendments in 2008 were unlawful, null, and void. As viewers may remember, the
effect of these amendments was to substitute an appointment tenure of 1 year where the appointment of certain judges did not specify an end date.
They got a victory in the Supreme Court before Justice Oswell Legal, and last year, the Government appealed that. After months of consideration, the
Appeal Court handed down its decision in which they allowed the Government's Appeal and set aside the declarations and orders of Justice Legal.
Outside of Court, government's attorney explained the implications to us:
Michael Young, SC - Attorney for GOB
"The bar association challenge this on the basis that it was a fundamental attack on the legal system and the judiciary. They filed their claim, the
judge at the Supreme Court agreed and we appealed; I'm saying the government appealed. I argued the case and the court of appeals this morning struck
down the judgement of the court below and allowed the appeal in effect dismissing the claim by the bar association. In effect what the court of appeal
is saying in this important judgement is that the amendment in no way; the amendment to the constitution is no way undermine the security of tenure for
judges. The judgement is long, I've just gotten it, have not had the opportunity to read it. What the court did just now was to deliver an executive
summary."
Daniel Ortiz
"So this suggestion that because you have a short term, the government supposedly has you on a leash and can control you or influence you is pretty
much a non-issue. Is that accurate?"
Michael Young, SC - Attorney for GOB
"That has been debunked and even the authorities show that in other parts of the jurisdiction, you can have one year appointments; doesn't necessarily
mean that the matter of the security of tenure or the independence of the judiciary is thereby undermined. What is important is that when a judge is
appointed that his period service is clear, his period of appointment is certain. That being the case, then if an executive tries to breach that period
some through some unlawful act then you have a concern about the independence of the judiciary."
The Bar still as the option to apply to the Appeal Court to bring a further appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Email
Print