Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC on Tuesday defended his right to criticise the conduct of judicial officers, declaring that the courts may review his statements but cannot prevent him from speaking when he believes the administration of justice is being undermined.
“A Minister of Justice cannot seek refuge in silence when there is a miscarriage of justice taking place. That’s not an option available to a Minister of Justice,” Nandlall said during his Issues in the News programme.
“And this Minister of Justice will certainly not seek refuge in silence,” he added.
Nandlall devoted most of the programme to judicial independence and accountability, arguing that the constitutional protection afforded to the judiciary does not place judges and magistrates beyond public scrutiny.
“If the occasion arises and I believe that I am duty bound to comment, I will comment. And if the comment is critical, then so be it,” he said.
“Courts can review what I say, but they cannot stop me because I am careful not to cross the boundary.”
Nandlall did not identify any judicial officer or case which prompted his presentation. However, he concluded the programme with pointed remarks about hearing dates being vacated after overseas lawyers had made arrangements to attend court.
“When the particular judicial officer has fixed dates one month before, for example, and lawyers are coming from all over the world to attend court, those dates must not be vacated at the whim and fancy of one side or for flimsy reasons,” he said.
The Attorney General said the issue was “assuming currency”, pointing to letters in the newspapers and widespread commentary on social media.
His remarks came amid the continuing extradition proceedings against Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. Nandlall did not say that he was referring to that case.
Kiskadee Watch reported that the Court of Appeal had ordered the extradition proceedings to continue before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman while staying only their final disposition until a related constitutional appeal is decided.
Further hearings in the Magistrate’s Court were initially scheduled for September 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The proceedings have since been adjourned to September 21, 22, 28 and 29 following several days of cross-examination of Senior Superintendent of Police Prem Narine.
During one of the hearings, Chief Magistrate Latchman cautioned prosecutor Glenn Hanoman against seeking to rush the proceedings, telling him: “Rushed justice is crushed justice.”
She also declared that the court would not be controlled by anyone inside or outside the courtroom and that it would be guided “only by divine intervention”.
On Tuesday, Nandlall maintained that members of the public were entitled to comment on ongoing proceedings once they did not seek to influence the outcome, act maliciously or impute improper motives to judicial officers.
“The sub judice rule doesn’t bar discussion or even criticism of a case that is ongoing. It does not,” he said.
According to him, judges and magistrates may be criticised in good faith, but the criticism must not be disrespectful or bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Nandlall also pointed to the Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Act, which provides a period of 120 days for judicial officers to deliver written decisions or reasons following the conclusion of a case.
He acknowledged that the Caribbean Court of Justice had found that the time-limit provisions were directory rather than mandatory. Nevertheless, he contended that the legislation remained a useful measure for assessing the time taken to deliver decisions.
The Attorney General said most judicial officers delivered decisions within a reasonable period, but maintained that there were exceptions where rulings took an unduly long time.
“Judges and other judicial officers are accountable,” he said. “The public and society must hold them accountable for the discharge of their functions, but must do so with dignity and respect.”
Discussion