Muddied waters

JUSTICE Vasheist Kokaram’s ruling in relation to Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley’s exercise of his section 137 powers underlines the responsibility of public officials to be impartial and extra scrupulous in their decision-making. At the same time, it lays bare the blatant need for constitutional reform.

Kokaram held the Prime Minister, when assessing whether there was a case for removing Chief Justice Ivor Archie, erred by making ill-advised remarks which addressed the perceived political complexion of the issue. Though Rowley’s remarks were not formally part of his
ratio decidendi or reasoning, Kokaram felt the Prime Minister’s comments muddied the waters of what should have been a purely objective exercise.

“There is absolutely no place in this process for politics,” the judge said. He ordered the Prime Minister to reconsider the matter.

Politicians should always be held to the highest standards. Too often there are concerns about abuse of power and the use of public office for private gain, whether political or financial.

It may well be that the Prime Minister’s right to free political speech is fettered by this ruling. But balanced with the very specific role the Prime Minister plays under the Constitution in relation to the possible disciplining of a chief justice, it is not unreasonable nor disproportionate to require him to exercise utmost caution in a matter as sensitive as the adjudication of the conduct of the head of the system of law and order. That system is one which all citizens must have confidence in. We must never perceive politics as interfering with justice.

And yet, this whole situation is hardly of the Prime Minister’s sole making. It is the Constitution which places what should be an impartial decision-making process within the hands of an inherently political actor. For what else is a prime minister if not a politician?

It is true our officials are more than capable of judicious decision-making. Any mind can, if properly trained, advised, and committed, be guided by reason and the cold clinical weighing of facts. But the arrangement created by the Constitution is far from ideal.

There should be an independent entity to handle precisely these kinds of messy matters, whether they have a political element or not. Such an independent body would be useful not only for the narrow remit of judicial censure; it could also adjudicate sensitive cases such as the matter of whether judges should be subject to the Integrity in Public Life Act, a matter which was, most unsatisfactorily, adjudicated by judges themselves.

Similarly, this envisioned independent body could take up the function of determining the pay of judges as well as MPs, and the bestowing of silk, matters that have often raised concerns over conflicts of interest.

Therefore, Kokoram’s ruling, which should be appealed to settle the law once and for all, should be the start of a deeper conversation.

Comments

"Muddied waters"

More in this section