The Bar Association fired a sharp shot across Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin's bow on Friday. The Bar's main topic of discussion at its Friday night Annual Meeting was whether they should ask for the CJ's voluntary resignation, or ask that he be removed - among other more conservative options.
That Bar's frustration stems from the fact that the CJ has 29 outstanding judgements - some delayed for more than five years, the others between two and five years.
And as they say, justice delayed is justice denied, so the bar put to its members that, quote, "at the very least, there is a presumption of a breach of the Constitutional right of the litigants to a fair hearing within a reasonable time…the delay…needs to be justified by the Court."
And while the Bar fumes, last week Thursday, the CJ wrote them a letter asking for a few months to catch up on the judgements. But, he did the same thing in 2016 - with little success - so some members of the bar were reluctant to agree to the same thing again.
Still, in the end, the more moderate position won out - and the Bar agreed - according to sources - to give him until the end of September. The bar has not confirmed this, and, today, when we spoke to the Attorney General, he said he heard they agreed to give the Chief Justice a deadline at the end of October.
Of course, all this business of giving deadlines to the head of the judiciary does not augur well for the justice system - and today at the airport AG Peyrefitte shared his concerns that the Chief Justice deliver sound judgements in a situation pressurized by a deadline:
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte, Attorney General
"It is a legitimate concern, especially if judgements are due for months upon months or even years. Quite frankly I thought that this matter had been dealt with. I am glad to see that the bar has decided to ease up on the pressure for about 90 days, I am not sure. I just landed, but that's what I heard - 90 days so that the Chief Justice could complete the writing of the decisions."
"What concerns me about it is that, that would be one judgement every 3 days, plus the current work that the Chief Justice has to do on a daily basis. So hopefully after that 3 month period - 90 day period, a significant amount of the judgements can be delivered and some more time could be given for the matters to be completed, because what I would not want and I am sure the Chief Justice would not do it, is to hurry the decisions and come to wrong decisions just for the sake of completing them."
"It is not the position of the government that the Chief Justice ought to resign or be remove from office for. It is not an issue, it is not that serious and so I think the bar was very aggressive, maybe overly aggressive in asking for the resignation. I don't think that that's a matter for resignation, but let's hope that in about 2-3 months it is no longer an issue."
Daniel Ortiz, Reporter
"Is this a very serious situation given that he is the head of the judiciary?"
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte, Attorney General
"Well it's very serious against any judge. Certainly the Chief Justice being the head of the judiciary makes it even more serious and sometimes the attorney don't always speak under their breath. I am under the impression that it was Channel 7 that busted them. You as usual got a hold of information that they didn't want you to get a hold of. But the cries have not been quiet, they've been quite loud. But people knew when to say what."
"I will naturally have a conversation with the president of the bar. I will have a conversation with the Chief Justice and hopefully we can come to some sort of understanding as to balance the need for the judgements to be delivered along with the need to ensure that the judgements are sound and not rushed or hurry."
Daniel Ortiz, Reporter
"At what point does it become a situation where the Chief Justice, his position is untenable?"
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte, Attorney General
"Well I don't want to speculate, but I think the Chief Justice currently, if he has not been before and I don't think he has not been before, he is now certainly aware that this is a serious issue and I am hoping that we don't have to answer that hypothetical question. But I would say that even the Chief Justice would admit that if a significant amount of those remaining judgements are not completed or written in that 90 day period, I think he himself would then have to look inward and consider whether or not certain actions need to be taken. I don't know. Like I said, it's my hope and expectation, we have a competent chief justice, we have a good chief justice and it's my hope that those judgements will be completed."
And while he hopes for the best, Peryreffite also expects that the CJ will remain in his post. There have been multiple credible reports to say that he has been offered the job as Chancellor of the Guyanese JUDICIARY. That's equivalent to the CJ'S post as the head of the judiciary, and it is in Benjamin's home country, Guyana. Of that, Peyrefitte said the CJ isn't going anywhere:
Hon. Michael Peyrefitte, Attorney General
"When I became attorney general, one of my first meetings was with the chief justice and when I sat down with him, we have a mutual friend - the attorney general of Guyana and myself and the chief justice are mutual friends and we were friends and so the chief justice told me that the attorney general had offered him the chancellor position in Guyana and he had rejected it. He had made it very clear to me that he was all in, fully committed to being chief justice of Belize."
Email
Print