Judges/magistrates’ rulings are not exempt from scrutiny, criticisms

Dear Editor,

The recent criticisms by Guyana’s Attorney General Hon. Anil Nandlall and Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo regarding a magistrate’s and a judge’s ruling in two separate public interest cases, respectively, have re-ignited a debate on whether it is acceptable to criticise judges/magistrates’ rulings, and even the trial process.

It is my considered view that judges/magistrates’ rulings should be subject to scrutiny and criticisms, but must be devoid of disparaging or distasteful remarks about the judicial officers.

Concerning whether it is right or wrong to criticise the court’s rulings, Mr. Ralph Ramkarran, SC recently rebuked Dr Jagdeo for criticising the decision of Justice Sandil Kissoon who ruled that Exxon’s affiliate, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL) “is in breach of its permit, which requires “unlimited” insurance protection in the event of an oil spill.”

Noting that Mr. Ralph Ramkarran had also criticised the NCM related ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice in September 2019, Dr Jagdeo wondered if Mr. Ramkarran has made a U-turn!

Mr. Ramkarran wrote:

“Its (CCJ) “timid and ineffectual” decision has intensified the constitutional chaos in Guyana. High Court cases are now being brought for orders and declarations that the CCJ ought to have made.”

He continued: “Criticising judges and courts in far sharper language than mine, is quite an accepted activity in normal countries.”

Disappointed with Judge Kissoon’s ruling, Dr

Jagdeo expressed the view that the judiciary is treading in murky waters by directing a regulatory agency on how to do its job, and setting a timeframe on when it should complete certain orders.

There appears to be some tension between the judiciary and the executive, and this is based partly on differing ideological approaches to analysing issues.

There is the School of Judicial Restraint (where judges should only interpret the law, decipher legislators’ intentions, and not make laws). The other is the School of Judicial Activism (where judges go beyond offering interpretations and tend to make laws).

Mr. Nandlall was accused by the Guyana Association of Women Lawyers (GAWL) for criticising the ruling of a magistrate in a case involving the former Finance Minister Mr. Winston Jordan, who allegedly sold a Georgetown (Waterfront) state property valued at US$40 million for US$100,000.

Mr. Nandlall states: “I resolutely maintain that I am entitled to express such a view, and that the same falls within the bounds of permissible criticism countenanced by law.”

He cited Lord Atkin who in 1936 posited: “But whether the authority and position of an individual judge or the due administration of justice is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising in good faith in private or public; the public act done in the seat of justice...... Justice is not a cloistered virtue...”

Mr. Nandlall and Dr Jagdeo, two key government policymakers, ex -