BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – Just a few weeks ago the Prime Minister told the electorate of St. Kitts and Nevis that if there were irregularities in the Electoral process they ought to refer the matter to the courts. “The Courts are there for that,” he said.
When they did go to the courts and the courts condemned the behaviour of officials within the Electoral system, the Prime Minister told his listeners on his weekly radio programme ‘Ask the Prime Minister’ that “the Judge is not God”.
This critical statement was seen to be in very poor taste by many listeners who have openly expressed their displeasure on hearing it and even the Communication’s Unit of the Prime Minister’s Office saw fit to edit it from the edition of ‘Ask the PM’ published on their website.
There is a growing trend of politicians in the Caribbean making critical or undermining statements of judges and the court to vent their displeasure when decisions of judges go contrary to their expectations.
Just last year Justice Lyle of Grenada saw fit to recuse himself from a case over which he was to preside. When the matter came up for hearing, the trial judge recused himself from hearing the claim on the grounds that "at a political campaign rally pre-December 13, a politician who was connected to the Vote No campaign referred to him as a joker".
Justice Lyle added, "I found it prudent to recuse myself so that there would be no allegation of bias one way or the other."
Oscar Ramjeet commenting in his column of Feb 22, 2011 said, “The learned judge referred to the politician by name - Sir James Mitchell, former prime minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, who served three consecutive terms, nearly four, as head of government.
"There is absolutely no doubt that Mitchell is an experienced politician and should not have made such a statement against a sitting judge, especially since there is no justification for such a statement.”
In Antigua in October 2010, former Prime Minister Lester Bird was extremely critical of a decision that was not in his favour.
He said his "faith in the regional jurisprudence has been shattered and indicated that his party has reservations about agreeing to have the Caribbean Court of Justice as the final appellate court”.
He claimed that the decision of the appellate court judges is fatally flawed, and it borders "on political decision-making" and was arrived at "based on some curious arithmetical criteria".
The Chief Justice of the Bahamas had to admonish a politician there last year. As reported in the Nassau Guardian of Sept 26, 2011, “The Chief Justice of The Bahamas, Sir Michael Barnett, on Friday fired back at Minister of National Security Tommy Turnquest, who on Thursday suggested that some judges are too liberal when it comes to granting bail to people charged with murder and other serious crimes.”
What gives rise to concern is that these comments destroy the people’s trust in these institutions which are important structures designed to uphold free and fair governance in a society.
Sir Michael describes it well when he said: “I am always concerned when people attack the judiciary because persons have to be careful in what they say, so as not to undermine the public confidence in those of us who serve in judicial office.”
Sir Hugh Rawlins, Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Appeal Court went even further in a recent comment at a Special Sitting of the Court. He commented that people should not ostracise or criticise the judgments of any adjudicator, even when the Court of Appeal overturns the initial ruling.
Recently, there has been a big brouhaha over comments made by local lawyers on the decision made by Justice Jones on the Nevis election petition causing one politician to tell the lawyers to stay out of their business.
Who then can comment on legal decisions? What Lawyer Emile Ferdinand said was quite instructive.
He stated: “The rule that Parliamentarians ought not to comment on cases that are sub judice, that is pending before the courts, has to do with the separation of governmental powers between the Parliament and the Judiciary.
“A private citizen is under no such restriction in expressing an opinion provided: no jury trial is possible, and the comments do not impede or prejudice the administration of justice, or scandalise the court.”
Mr. Charles Wilkin, Q.C., who also commented on Justice Jones decision, had this to say: “My right to speak on matters of public importance is not derived from him (Premier Parry) or from any politician, nor from my position as an attorney. It is a fundamental and sacred right which as a citizen I will exercise whatever he may think. He cannot stop me from talking. I’m sure he realises that and that he and I will remain friends.”
Chief Justice of the Bahamas, Sir Michael made this observation: “What I find fascinating about many persons who criticise the decisions of the courts or decisions of a particular judge, is that they may not have attended the hearing and know what was presented before the courts or the circumstances that gave rise to the exercise of the court of the decision that it made.”
Politicians need to guide their electorate to respect and uphold the institutions that hold the structure of the society in place. Comments which undermine these institutions could only lead to the crumbling of proper governance and the onset of chaos where the rule of law should be upheld.
