Barrow’s tentacles near the judiciary
For some time now, things have appeared increasingly unsettled in the Judiciary. First, an Attorney General questioned the competence of the judiciary at the Supreme Court opening. The Bar Association passed a resolution calling for the removal of a judge, then engaged Prime Minister Dean Barrow in a public tiff over his manner of appointing judges to both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. There is the popular view that the PM moved with undignified haste to retire the Chief Justice whose tenure could have been extended. Now, this session of the Court of Appeal has gotten off with a prickly start. In the nationalization of Telemedia appeal, three of the available four judges have recused themselves. In another case, two of the judges recused themselves and there is an application for a judge to remove himself in another case.
To meet this shortage of appeal judges, the PM on October eighth wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, John Briceño, proposing that Judge Oswell Legall, a Judge of the Supreme Court, be temporarily promoted to hear appeals against decisions of his colleagues at the Supreme Court. Word to News Five is that the Leader of the Opposition has responded to the Prime Minister raising a number of concerns over the appointment, chief among them, is what he deems is the unconstitutionality of the appointment because the section of the constitution 101(1) referred to by the PM, does not provide for the temporary appointments to the court of appeal. Briceño also took note that the letter from the PM was dated October eighth for the appointment that was in place since October fourth. According to the leader of the opposition, it is not right for the Executive to appoint a judge to hear a single case selected from the Court of Appeal list. In this instance it is the case of the Royal Bank of Trinidad and Tobago versus Cedric Flowers.
In his letter the leader of the Opposition points out that Justice Legall is the most junior member of the Supreme Court bench and has a full calendar of cases for October. He also questions the basis on which Justice Legall was selected.
Senior members of the Bar have raised eyebrows at this latest maneuver in the judiciary and tell News Five that it is an “unusual practice” and “very unhealthy” for the independence of the judiciary.
There is a provision in the constitution which allows a Supreme Court judge to act as a Court of Appeal Judge. Maybe the provision mentioned in the letter is incorrect but there is a provision. I have seen it when I was reading the constitution last week. If I am not wrong, I think the Court of Appeal Judges are recusing themselves because there would be an appearance of bias if they heard certain appeals. They are following their own precedent which they set in the PUC case. We seem to worry too much about judges who right their “reasoned” judgements based on law instead of worrying about more important things happening in Belize that we should make noise about. Even if a judge gets a case wrong there is always an appeal process. Where the Supreme Court is alleged to have got it wrong the Court of Appeal has supposedly got it right. Where the Court of Appeal were supposedly wrong in overruling a judgment of the Supreme Court, The Privy Council has done justice. This same Justice will be done by Caribbean Court of Justice.
We want to know about the Immigration scandal not about judges. I want to know who is the real ringleader of the immigration scam. I think dat da weh matter to most belizean
FIRST and FOREMOST, A Prime Minister has NO AUTHORITY to appoint a Judge. This is the job of the Governor-General acting on the advice of his advisors. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN BELIZE!!!???!!!????!!!! Is the PM going to appoint himself King, next??????????
GOD SAVE US!
A lot of you people who comment on articles about the judiciary speak without knowing. READ THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE YOU TALK ABOUT ANYTHING REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES OR THE JUDICIARY. The appointing of a judge is something which happens once the Prime Minister has given the leader of opposition the name of the canidate and sought the leader of oppositon’s advice. This is a mere formality. The leader of opposition can bring up good a real reasons for not wanting the appointment to go through, but this carries no weight in law. It basically does not matter what the leader of opposition says. If the leader of oposition had to approve the canidate it would mean that the leader of opposition could refuse a candite’s appointment out of his own voilition and personal reasons and the judiciary would grind to a stand still because for instance their might not be a full quorum of the Court of Appeal. Teh Prime Minister then advises (the proper word should be “tells”) the Govenor General to appoint the canidate (in the case of judges of the supreme court, their appointment has to be approved by the senate before the Govenor General makes the appointment). The Govenor General CANNOT refuse a reccomendation of a canidate made by the Prime Minister because that will be in contravention of the consitution. Also the Govenor Geral lacks democratic legitimacy as he is not an elected official. The only reasons whereby the Govenor Genral may refuse to make the appointemnt is if perhaps the canidate does not satisfy the requirements of a judge as set out in the constitution. Otherwise the Govenor General is compelled to make the appointement. Otherwise the Govenor General could possibly be impeached for breach of his constitutional duty. Remember people the Govenor General is only a symbolic/ceremonial office. He acts as a representative of Queen Elizsabeth II or whoever the British monarch may be at a given time. If you so called wise guys do not believe me you should just go and check The Constitution and read the sections that deal with the judiciary and those sections therein that deal with the powers of the Govenor General. They are written in clear intellegeable English which the reasonable man can understand without much difficulty. I reccomend this especially to the person who posts coments under the name “rod” because he seems to be a concerned Belizean, but he comments without doing research.
Very good info AD Balderamos. Some of us Belizeans make uninformed comments. I believe if every Belizean knew the “Law of the Land” – Constitution, we be better off. Its in our own interest to know our Belizean Constitution.
El Presidente for Life Barrow! Vive the Republic of Belice!
We are already a banana Republic in all but name anyway, so why not go the whole hog????
Very well said A D Balderamos , the law is the law the way it is until it is changed even so, all that I have heard sounds pretty much like bureaucracy in the sense of unnecessary procedures if the Governor General does not have the right to refuse or cannot refuse why then call upon him to make an appointment, I would have to say that it is time for an amendment to that part of the constitution but then who is up to the task of recommending such an amendment to the constitution it would certainly have to be in their best interest to do so, not even the leader of the opposition would find it in his best interest since he of course has the ambition of one day becoming the Prime minister and this part of the constitution would only be to his advantage if he ever succeeds. The laws of Belize written by politicians and lawyers for politicians and lawyers and the constitution being the supreme law of the land I am sure is like their holy grail.