Dear Editor:
I write with respect to our administration of justice and unfortunately the system is just drowning day after day. I address what I perceive to be a breach of the constitutional rights of some accused persons appearing in the Magistrate’s Court and this relates to the length of time that is fixed between hearings.
Article 144 (1) of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana states: “If any person is charged with a criminal offence, then unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.”
What is requisite is that the charge and/or trial should be heard within a reasonable time. The question that will arise is, what is reasonable? A court looking at this question would have to look at all the circumstances and determine objectively whether any breach has occurred. The question of justice to the state and an accused person would have to be examined.
I have noted for some time now through newspaper reports and in some of the cases that I have been involved in, that there is one magistrate in the Georgetown Magisterial District who also sits one day in a country court, and that several cases of persons who cannot find bail, are adjourned to periods of up to three months or more. Recently, in late November, two women appeared before this magistrate charged with the offence of trafficking with narcotics. They both pleaded not guilty and their cases were adjourned to April 6, 2009. They were both remanded to prison and there is no likelihood that their case will commence on the adjourned date, and for sure it will not be concluded unless they plead guilty.
There is no doubt in my mind that these prolonged adjournments of persons incarcerated are a breach of their constitutional right to have a trial within a reasonable time. Let it be clear that I am not questioning the credibility and/or competence of the learned magistrate.
The question to be asked is why are there these long postponements, since given these, an unduly long time for a matter to be concluded will surely follow. Is it that the magistrate has too much on her plate? I do believe that the magistrate feels that she has too many matters to deal with and cannot do better. But that is not good enough as the situation has to be remedied and the Chancellor and the Minister of Justice have to step in.
The Chancellor of the Judiciary, Mr Carl Singh (ag) is the person who is in charge of the administration and supervision of our magistrates. It is his duty to see that the magistrates function efficiently and that there is no breach of any constitutional rights of citizens by any officer under his control.
I recall that when I was on the bench that magistrates had to submit regularly a list of cases that they had concluded, how many part-heard cases were pending, how many other cases were pending and other information. I hope that this is still in place, and if it is then the Chancellor needs to examine the lists more closely and if they are not being submitted, to ensure that they are and/or put back in place the requirement to submit the above-mentioned information.
I would wish also to mention here something different from the above. Some weeks ago it was reported in the press that Justice Patterson had to hear a matter in the corridor of the Supreme Court as there was a blackout and the generator that was installed in the Supreme Court compound was not working. I checked and it seemed that after the generator was installed several other appliances, including many air-conditioners were added to the system. These were not catered for, because if they had been a larger generator should have been installed. However, the reason for the non-functioning of the generator was poor maintenance. The supplier of the generator had written several times indicating that there was the essential need to have the maintenance agreement extended. The charge for this service was $11000 per month. The maintenance agreement was not extended and a contract was given to someone else. The result is that the generator is out of use and a judge had to use the corridor to get some work done. We are all the losers.
K.A. Juman-Yassin
|
Dear Editor:
The findings of an opinion survey conducted by the North American Caribbean Teachers Association (NACTA) show that supporters of the opposition UNCA and COP feel their respective leaders, Basdeo Panday and Winston Dookeran, should step down and hold elections to choose a successor. UNCA supporters also say that Panday should approve the holding of internal party elections to choose a new executive so that the party can pursue urgent reforms to expand its political base to give it a shot at political office. The supporters of UNCA say that unless their party has a new leader and is reinvented, it has no chance of winning an election. Opposition supporters feel Panday remains the single largest obstacle to unity among the opposition forces and to political change in T&T. Supporters of COP concur saying there will not be unity with UNCA as long as Panday remains its leader. Analogously, COP followers also view Dookeran as an obstacle to unity among the opposition and they feel Dookeran too should step aside.
The poll also found that disgruntled PNM-ites will not support either the COP or UNCA or any group led by Panday or Dookeran. They prefer Prime Minister Patrick Manning over either opposition political leader as their P.M. Disgruntled PNM supporters want a united political outfit of all opposition forces led by a vibrant, dynamic individual who can pursue real change and bring the divided country together.
The latest NACTA survey was conducted in late December to find out the population’s views on political leadership, unity among the opposition parties, approval rating of the ruling administration, and other current issues.
The findings are based on interviews systematically conducted with 472 respondents reflecting the demographic composition of the population.
The findings of the survey show growing disillusionment with the ruling party. Asked if they approve of the way the government is running the country, only 19% said yes with 70% saying no and 11% offering no response. Voters complain primarily about rising crime, poor handling of the economy, flooding, squandering of energy income, among other concerns.
Asked if they think either the UNCA or COP can defeat the PNM in the coming local government elections, 81% said no with only 11% saying yes. The PNM is projected to retain the local governments it currently holds and wrest seats from the UNCA in its strongholds unless there is serious change in the UNCA.
Asked if they think Panday should step aside as leader of the UNC and prepare the party for leadership succession, 73% (of UNC supporters) said yes and 18% said no with 9% offering no response. Almost every UNC supporter also feels Dookeran should step down as leader of COP to allow his party to choose a successor who can engage in unity talks with a reformed UNCA under new leadership. Many UNCA supporters said the party should have term limits on a leader to allow for change.
Vishnu Bisram, New York |