On Thursday, the Chief Justice underscored the significant burden on judges just before scheduling decisions in two cases regarding the government’s eviction of Cane View, Mocha residents. She remarked that the judiciary is often criticised for not adhering to the four-month rule, yet it faces an overwhelming caseload. “Everyone wants to refer to the four-month rule but there were 400 cases to be dealt with,” she noted, emphasising that judges are under immense pressure and handle numerous files weekly. “I deal with 100 to 200 files weekly,” she added.
The interaction took a contentious turn when Nandlall, acknowledging the Chief Justice’s workload, suggested that the law should be reconsidered. “I know, I know Your Honour,” he said. However, this seemingly conciliatory statement immediately incurred the Chief Justice’s ire. “No, no, no! You don’t think so,” she shot back. As Nandlall attempted to explain that the law might need changing, George-Wiltshire asserted the law should have never been passed. “That was heresy. I don’t care who reports that I said so. Heresy!” she declared.
Nandlall distanced himself from the enactment of the time limit for Judicial Decisions Act (2009), stating that he was not the Attorney General at the time. Yet, the Chief Justice countered that he might have supported it as a parliamentarian. “I don’t care who was the Attorney General. Parliament passed it and I don’t doubt, Mr Nandlall, that you were quite well-seated there,” she said. Nandlall denied he was in the House during the law’s passage.
The Chief Justice also addressed public criticism of judges, describing it as distressing and unfair. “Terrible comments are made about the judges. It’s distressing. I have to comment,” she said, referencing recent derogatory remarks, including Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s description of High Court Judge Sandil Kissoon as “presumptuous” for his ruling in favour of the Guyana Teachers’ Union.
George-Wiltshire stressed that while criticism is inevitable, the nature of recent remarks has been damaging to the judiciary’s reputation. “It’s very unfair and it’s also in effect bringing the entire judiciary into disrepute,” she stated, warning that such criticism undermines public respect for the court system.
Nandlall, on a recent episode of his Facebook show “Issues In The News,” reiterated his concerns about judges failing to comply with the law, citing various challenges the judiciary faces but emphasising that no one is above the law. “There is a law, and this law must be complied with. Every other person in the country is expected to comply with the laws of this land,” he said.
Despite his assurances that more judges would soon be appointed to ease the burden, the Chief Justice maintained that the new appointees would still face significant challenges. “The load that they have to carry is not going to be easy. The files are all waiting for them,” she remarked.
So, what exactly is this Act?
The Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Act was enacted in 2009 to expedite the judicial process by requiring judges to deliver their decisions within 120 days after a case is heard. The relevant section of the Act states: “Every judge shall deliver a decision in any matter within one hundred and twenty days of the conclusion of the hearing of the matter.”
The Act also states that judges who fail to comply with the 120-day requirement could face disciplinary action, including removal from office. However, as highlighted by Chief Justice George-Wiltshire, the rigid timeframe does not account for the practical realities faced by the judiciary, including a heavy caseload and insufficient judicial resources.
The Chief Justice argued that the act’s mandates fail to consider the complexity and volume of cases judges handle, making it virtually impossible to meet the deadlines without compromising the quality of judicial decisions. “Is not like we’re sitting down here twiddling our thumbs. No judge in Guyana sits and twiddles their thumbs. None,” she asserted, pointing out that judges, Commissioners of Title, Justices of Appeal, and Magistrates work diligently without public complaint.
This ongoing debate underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers both the necessity for timely justice and the operational challenges within our nation’s judicial system. While the Act’s intention to streamline judicial processes is clear, its implementation has sparked significant controversy, highlighting the complexities of legal reform in Guyana.
