Dear Editor,
The recent letter by Mr. Jailall T. Kissoon, which offers a defense of his son-in-law, acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, requires a response grounded in the principles of judicial appointments. I wish to state that I am not writing in defense of Dr. Terrence Campbell, as his capacity to repair the breach in the PNC is a separate matter and I have little confidence in him and his ability to lead the APNU in Parliament.
Setting Dr. Campbell aside, Mr. Kissoon’s letter appears to deflect from legitimate, evidence-based concerns regarding the judicial fitness of his son-in-law relative to other qualified jurists. One name that merits consideration is Justice Rishi Persaud. Justice Persaud’s extensive legal practice and exposure to the judicial wisdom of his late father, Justice Prem Persaud, provided him with a long and seasoned foundation in the law before Justice Singh’s career began. This point is made to frame the central issue of professional experience.
It is in this vein that I must disagree with the content and spirit of Mr. Kissoon’s letter. To characterize rigorous scrutiny as “prejudice” undermines the importance of a transparent and merit-based appointment process. The focus must remain on the present qualifications and records of those being considered for high judicial office.
The attempts to pivot to the tenures of past administrations are a diversion. The accountability of previous governments does not absolve the present government—or the current acting Chief Justice—from contemporary scrutiny. Demanding integrity and competence today is not negated by historical shortcomings. This line of argument is not a substantive defense of a judicial record.
But we should not be surprised with Mr. Kissoon’s apparently indifference to due process after serving in the most undemocratic regime of Guyana at no less a role than a Minister in the Burnham Government. What do they call it – “dancing for the dishonest coin’?
Mr. Kissoon’s letter also addresses the private criminal charges that were brought against Justice Singh. To dismiss a matter that rightly raised public concern as merely the result of “rudeness or insults” minimizes the legitimate questions such proceedings raise about a sitting judge’s temperament. The public’s trust is not automatically restored by a withdrawal; the circumstances remain a point of inquiry.
Furthermore, the defense of Justice Singh’s sentencing record, which has been corrected by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) for being “harsh and excessive,” is concerning. To justify judicial rulings that exceed established precedent by citing “severe crimes require severe penalties” argues for a departure from proportional justice. The role of a judge is to apply the law consistently.
Most problematically, the letter implies that Justice Singh’s role in the 2020 election cases places him beyond reproach. Guyana has a final court in the CCJ, which has consistently ruled on election matters. On occasions where rulings from Georgetown-based courts were appealed, the CCJ provided the final adjudication in full compliance with the letter of the law and quite competently. But isn’t the job of Justice Singh to just do his job?
In closing, Mr. Kissoon’s missive does a disservice to the cause of an independent judiciary. True judicial independence is fortified by transparency and accountability, not by deflecting legitimate questions. I stand by the position that bypassing more experienced and qualified legal minds, such as Justice Rishi Persaud, for the role of acting Chief Justice diminishes the perceived integrity of the judicial system.
The action of His Excellency President Irfaan Ali on making Justice Singh as the acting Chief Justice can be considered as politicizing the judicial appointment process. So we can expect in a quid pro quo, all cases landing in front of Justice Singh that can benefit the Executive will get a favourable eye. Is that justice Mr. Jailall T. Kissoon? Fortunately, the CCJ remains as a vital institution to ensure the correct application of the law on top of the Georgetown-based courts.