LATT: JLSC, CJ ought to know importance of judicial independence

The Law Association (LATT) has broken its silence on the controversy surrounding the forced resignation of one-time judge Marcia Ayers-Caesar, saying in a release on March 25, that the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC) as well as Chief Justice Ivor Archie ought to have recognised the importance of judicial independence to which judicial officers are entitled.

The association's release said the ruling on Monday by the Privy Council contained pronouncements on critical matters relating to proper conduct of judicial office-holders and the fundamental principle of security of tenure that is essential to preserving judicial independence and autonomy.

The LATT said both the JSLC and Chief Justice's failure to recognise this independence was a matter of "serious concern."

The association said, "Security of tenure ensures that judicial officers are free from external pressures and interference, whether exerted by the Executive, the JLSC – which appoints them – or the Chief Justice who leads them.

"Equally concerning is the fact that because of such failure, the matters which gave rise to the litigation between Justice Marcia Ayers-Caesar and the JLSC, remain unresolved."

On Monday, the Privy Council said Ayers-Caesar was wrongfully pressured into resigning by the Archie-led JLSC and declared her removal unconstitutional.

Ayers-Caesar can now reclaim her position as a High Court judge. She is also entitled to millions of dollars in earnings as well as other court-imposed reliefs, as her eight-year legal battle against the JLSC finally came to an end.

She was appointed a judge on April 12, 2017.

The LATT release said judicial officers, like other citizens, are entitled to defend themselves before any decisions are made for their removal from office.

"The JLSC was found to have acted unlawfully in bringing about Justice Ayers-Caesar’s resignation, with a threat of potential disciplinary action pursuant to section 137 of the Constitution."

Th release said the judgment settled the question of whether the conduct of judicial officers prior to their respective appointments can be considered by the JLSC in exercising its powers under section 137 of the Constitution ie, to consider removing judges from office.

"It is now clear that judicial officers may be removed from office under section 137 of the Constitution based on evidence of conduct that occurred prior to their appointment," the LATT said.

It is also clear from the judgment (of the Privy Council) that however noble the intentions of the JLSC, Section 137 is the only lawful mechanism for removing judicial officers from office.