TODAY I will deal with two subjects: a matter concerning judicial appointments and the recent recording of BBC World Questions in Guyana.
Let me jump right in. During the course of the week Stabroek News (SN) apologised to Chief Justice Navendra Singh for publishing defamatory content surrounding his appointment. The kernel of its reporting originated from a letter written by former chief magistrate, Senior Counsel K. A. Juman-Yassin, which contained the original slanderous content.
SN published the letter and simply regurgitated the contents as hard news. The gist of the offence involves the use of strongly implied language that CJ Singh either received direct instructions from, or was part of a plan hatched with the President to oust Chancellor Cummings-Edwards and bypass Justice Rishi Persaud to facilitate the appointment of Justice Singh. Mr Juman-Yassin also apologised, repudiated and recalled his letter.
The bug that bit SN was the hard-nosed, fanatical anti-government, anti-PPP paranoia that overcame the newspaper since the election of Dr Ali. SN was in an ever-ready status to sacrifice good journalistic and editorial principles in order to jump on anything that will negatively sensationalise President Ali’s administration and present him as a tyrannical, undemocratic governor.
Mr Juman-Yassin harboured the bug, which may have very well bitten him. Perhaps he permanently sits or had a brief sojourn in that amoral seat that is occupied by many local experts who ought to be seized of the facts. Given his resume and professional profile, I find it hard to believe that Mr Juman-Yassin did not know how judicial appointments are made and that his knowledge is so deficient to the point where he was prepared to throw such a tantrum of misdirection and misinformation.
I am usually peeved with professionals who are either recklessly careless with the facts or deliberately spew misinformation, which they know will mislead the public. I have seen and heard so many comments in the public space that suggest, when the President appoints judges, somehow, the independence of the judiciary is threatened and the sacred principle of separation of powers is violated. The letter by Juman-Yassin adds fuel to this false notion lurking in the public space.
Nowhere in the world is the appointment of judges a judicial function. It’s an executive function steeped in a political process. There is no statute or endemic practice that dictates that the longest-serving judge be promoted to fill the next available senior position. It is a normal part of the political process to seek to appoint judges who have sympathetic political proclivities. On this score, I believe many politicians have been hypocritical when communicating with the public. Some politicians paint a picture that suggests they are angels and the perceived political proclivities of a particular judge does not matter to them at all. They pretend as though all that matters is that the judge exercise competence, independence and good scholarship. Yes, these qualities may be highly sought, but that’s not all there is to it. Politicians should level with the public. I like the political openness we see in the American system: the politicians say it plainly, as an example, whenever they are in charge, Republicans will forthrightly state that they are seeking a conservative judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
The selection and appointment of judges through a political process does not interfere with the separation-of- powers doctrine. Separation of powers is situated in the functions performed by judicial officers and the functional and legal mechanisms in place to give effect to the execution of those functions. I am sure I can think of at least five different ways in which politicians can have little or nothing to do with the appointment of judges, but whether you are from Middle Eastern, South Asian or Western culture or legal architecture, the civilisation of the earth has simply not evolved to that stage and to pretend that is has, is pure professional dishonesty and political burlesque.
And now a quick comment on the BBC World Questions. I was in the audience for the recording. I do not know what went into the selection of the questions, but the chosen ones together with the general gait of the moderator’s follow-ups seem to lean towards a narrative of an imprudent, fiscally irresponsible and growingly reclusive government.
I am not making a claim of bias per se, but with all that is happening in Guyana’s current affairs, any fair-minded person will question whether there couldn’t have been at least one substantive question or follow-up which probed the political stewardship of the opposition.
The BBC’s event organisers named Dennis Chabrol as their local corresponding journalist and event chaperone. Did the quality of his work have anything to do with the skewed orientation of the World Questions? Was the BBC lavished with an anti-government perspective?
Given the circumstances, I think Minister Dr Ashni Singh acquitted himself well. On the other hand, the usually politically banal MP Tabitha Sarabo-Halley found a gasp of life to mount the opposition’s one-horse pony. In usual opposition style, she found a way to flog the racehorse, even when the question was unrelated.
On the debate stage, the opposition rep let the world know that the government is racially polarising the country, but not a single word about the open, raw, racist, dog whistling of prominent members of the opposition. The opposition rep found every conceivable thing wrong with the political economy of the country, but failed to articulate even a modicum of alternative; filled with rhetoric and monotony, but blank on actual implementable measures.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.