Today’s (October 26, 2025) letters column is once again flooded with submissions from the usual critics of government, all echoing the refrain that “the judiciary’s independence is threatened.” I find this assertion not only perplexing but deeply disrespectful to the sitting acting Chancellor of the Judiciary.
This is a jurist who, in her capacity as acting Chief Justice, delivered several landmark judgments—some of which were initially overturned by the local Court of Appeal, but later upheld by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). That judicial trajectory does not reflect weakness or compromise; rather, it underscores her unquestionable professionalism, legal acumen, and fidelity to the Constitution. Her record demonstrates that her rulings consistently withstood the most rigorous tests of appellate scrutiny at the regional level.
It is therefore both ironic and revealing that those now claiming the judiciary’s independence is under threat are, in many cases, the same individuals who were the subjects of her decisions that upheld the Constitution and the rule of law. Their dissatisfaction is less about institutional independence and more about judicial outcomes that did not align with their political preferences.
Let’s do a simple evaluation. Examine the number of judgments handed down by the current acting Chancellor when she served as acting Chief Justice. Determine how many of her judgments were overturned or upheld by the CCJ and then compare that to how many judgments from the Court of Appeal were overturned or upheld by the CCJ. The empirical record will speak for itself—it will reveal a jurist whose decisions have been consistently validated at the highest level of the regional judiciary.
The fact of the matter is that the independence of the judiciary in Guyana is now more fortified than ever. The current leadership reflects judicial maturity, competence, and integrity. The record of judgments stands as evidence—unyielding to political winds and rooted in constitutional principle.
The assertion that judicial independence is being eroded is not only unsupported by fact, it is an affront to the credibility and professionalism of one of the country’s most distinguished jurists.