Dear Editor,
I recently came across a Facebook post by renowned Guyanese cardiologist Dr Mahendra Carpen, in response to comments by Justice Courtney Abel about High Court Judge Gino Persaud’s U.S. visa being placed under review.
Dr Carpen wrote that Abel “transparently side-stepped the subject of Judicial Accountability and whether judicial officers are beyond reproach or infallible on the bench.” I take his point to be that concern about judicial independence should not prevent us from asking how judges are held accountable. The two issues can be discussed together. Independence protects judges from improper pressure; accountability helps maintain public confidence in the courts.
This discussion also brings to mind Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman’s statement during the extradition proceedings involving Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed, that her court “will not be controlled by any mortal being” and “will control its own pace.” Is the magistrate a law unto herself? Is she saying that her court cannot be held accountable by a higher court?
Judicial independence is important, but it should not mean that any judicial officer is beyond accountability or scrutiny.
One practical step would be to make it mandatory for all judicial officers to declare their assets and liabilities to the Integrity Commission. My understanding is that there has been some resistance to this from the judiciary. Why this transparency and accountability measure is being resisted by only one of the three arms of government is bewildering. Both the executive and legislative branches of government are compelled to file declarations—why not the judiciary?
No one is trying to tell judges and magistrates how to decide cases. It is about applying clear standards of transparency to public officials and strengthening trust in the justice system. Judicial independence matters, and so does accountability. The time to make the rules clear and consistent is now.