Attorney General explains remarks about judiciary
The House of Representatives resumed regular sessions in Belmopan today. One issue that was well ventilated involved the judiciary, which has not had a good year doesn’t seem to be getting better. At the opening of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General questioned the competence of the Judiciary. This was followed by a move by some members of the Bar Association to invite Justice Samuel Awich to resign or face removal. This past Tuesday, the Judiciary fired back and placed the blame for opening the judiciary to attack squarely on the AG. This Thursday, in an exclusive interview and today in the House of Representatives, he repeated his concerns and criticisms. The obvious conflict was also brought up by the former Prime Minister, Said Musa and the current, PM Dean Barrow.
Said Musa, Area Rep., Fort George
“Are we not reaping the world wind when the leader of the Bar in our country, when the honourable Attorney General would openly in court issue this attack on the judges what they themselves call a wholesale attack on the judiciary and the magistracy?”
Wilfred Elrington, Attorney General
“Shortly after I got elected and was made Attorney General, I received a written request from the Bar Association asking me to ask some of the judges to step down, to resign because they were not functioning. They were not giving their judgments and in some cases judgment had not been given for eleven years; in some cases, for twelve years. There were cases where people died before their cases were resolved, cases where people with businesses went out of business before their cases were resolved. The member on the other side stayed in government for ten years. The member from Fort George is one of our most senior attorneys. For some strange reason the Bar did not see it necessary to address their attorney general or to ask him to assist with the situation. They asked me and I wrote back to the Bar saying I do not think—after taking legal advice—that I had the authority to ask any of the judges to step down. Before in fact the appointment of some of the judges because I knew, from the caliber of judges that were being selected, that we would have problems. This is not anything new and this is confirmed by the action taken by Bar Association at that time. But I subsequently learned that even before coming to me, the Bar Association made another initiative against judiciary because they could not get decisions which they needed to have. I find it particularly tragic that in fact the former Prime Minister raises this matter because at the last appointment of a judge, the entire Bar Association made written submissions indicating that they did not approve that appointment. And I asked about the situation. I asked that if the Bar Association made written submissions saying that he was not suitable in their view, how was it that he got appointed. And the report I got was that the powers that be wanted him and I did not feel that I should stand in their way. So now we have a judge and you can check the judgments and you will find that they are very serious deficiencies. At a time when the courts are overcrowded with both civil and criminal matters, you have to have the highest caliber on the bench.”
Prime Minister Dean Barrow
“The Attorney General is making the point that he has not said anything that the Bar Association hasn’t said and that his remarks were in fat prompted by complaints that the Bar Association made. He’s telling us that there was a most recent initiative by the Bar Association. There was some meeting to consider some new resolution I think two weeks ago. So that, in my view, all the Attorney General has done is to highlight, in the same way that the Bar has done, some of the shortcomings. I don’t think that there is any war declared between the Attorney General and the judiciary. However you slice it, you can’t get away from the fact there are problems and the Attorney General is very brave to speak out in the way that he did. Normally, we’re accustomed, where the judiciary is concerned, to cover things, to sweep things under the rug for fear of provoking the very reaction that has happened. I think the Attorney General was bold but I think his criticisms were not maliciously motivated. I think he was well intentioned in saying what he said and I really believe that it ought to be left there. I genuinely don’t understand why the judiciary would issue a statement relating to the Attorney General as a consequence of what the Bar Association is doing; beats me.”
In all this, aren’t citizens liable for contempt of court for saying things that bring the judiciary into disrepute?
