Bar Prepares to Challenge JLSC Over Legality of Decisions

The Supreme Court has been operating with a chronic shortages of puisne judges but an attempt to fill the void through new appointments is meeting challenges. That is because recent submission and interview processes did not include the president of the Bar Association who has a rightful seat on the Judicial and Legal Services Commission.  It’s a bone of contention for the Bar Association who recently won a judgment declaring its president’s exclusion from past JLSC meetings, under the tenure of former Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin, to be unlawful.  Now, there is presently a six-month freeze on the creation of new posts, as well as the filling of vacant posts within the public sector which extends to the judiciary. That aside, the Bar Association is prepared to challenge the legality of the processes since they did not include the input of former president Cheryl-Lyn Vidal.  Attorney Andrew Marshalleck explains.

Andrew Marshalleck, Vice President, Bar Association

“Where we were is that I think towards the end of last year or the beginning of this year and there were advertisements for vacancies for the posts of puisne judge to be filled.  A number of people had applied and the commission had entertained those applications and I believe conducted interviews and were set to make certain decisions.  Of course, this is the commission that was, according to the Bar Association, unlawfully constituted because the president of the bar had been excluded from all of those deliberations and decisions.  We had of course taken the view and challenged the legality of everything that transpired, so that would include the decisions taken in relation to this recruitment process as well.  So there was a first meeting of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission scheduled for today and as a result, papers were shared with the Bar Association and that is how, I think, everybody learned of how far they had gotten along in that process. As far as the bar is concerned, all the decisions taken and actions taken by the commission during the period when Mrs. Vidal was excluded from participation in the meetings are unlawful.  The Acting Chief Justice has of course decided that they are not, so we have decided that we will be appealing this decision and we will be launching that appeal shortly.  So we stand by our position that those actions were unlawful and the association doesn’t enjoy much confidence in the arguments to the contrary.”

Isani Cayetano

“Is it to say then, that perhaps the foreseeable consequence of all of this would mean that there would have to be another fresh new round of interviews for anyone interested in filling those vacancies on the bench?”

Andrew Marshalleck

Andrew Marshalleck

“Certainly our position.  Our position is that the process would have to be started anew and take all the decision as to how that process is to be undertaken and all the interviews and screening of applicants, all of it, from the beginning to the end will need to be done with the participation of the bar.”