The Office of Chief Justice is a critical one in any democracy in which the courts play a key part in resolving disputes between citizens. This role helps the Government in an indirect way to carry out its responsibility for peace, order and good governance of the society.
But apart from this rather indirect and distant involvement in the governance of the society, the judiciary is independent of the Government and is charged, among other things, with the higher responsibility of ensuring that the Constitution and the fundamental rights provided thereunder for the protection of the citizens are upheld in accordance with the doctrine of the supreme law which Section 1 declares the Constitution to be.
The courts can therefore slap down the Government if laws are passed which infringe the rights of people and contravene and offend the Constitution. The offices of a judge of the Supreme Court and of the Justices of Appeal are therefore very important and standing at the apex of this system is the post and office of Chief Justice of Barbados.
Filling the office of Chief Justice is not a matter to be lightly undertaken. It is a most serious matter and only those who exhibit the requisite learning in the law and who are otherwise qualified should merit appointment to this most prestigious post.
Ever since last year when Sir David Simmons reached the retirement age, there has been rampant discussion and debate in genteel and sometimes not-so-genteel circumstances concerning a successor.
In fact, the name of Mr Marston Gibson, a graduate of the University of the West Indies and a Rhodes Scholar of Oxford university, has been mentioned as a likely successor. The Press has featured at least two interviews with Mr Gibson among other reports on the office.
Mr Gibson spoke – perhaps too freely – to some of the issues concerning the matter of his likely appointment and told us he was informed that there was a legal hitch which had arisen. As we all know, the Supreme Court of Judicature Act was amended so as not to exclude those lawyers like Mr Gibson who might not have the relevant number of years in the practice of law as defined in the act, before the amendment.
Given the public interest in the filling of the vacancy which has arisen, the recent statement by the Barbados Bar Association is a matter for serious consideration, and the public is entitled to know now what are the Government’s plans to fill the post.
The Bar’s language is strong and direct. After an executive council meeting last week, Bar president Andrew Pilgrim asked whether the people in Barbados were not entitled to know why an appointment had not yet been made, after the law had been changed.
He further declared: “It [amendment] is no longer an issue.
You have changed the law to do this. What are we waiting for?”
We feel these are legitimate questions deserving of an answer.
Only the Government knows exactly what the position is; but it is not only the Government which has an interest in this appointment. Given the importance of the post to which we have already adverted, each and every Barbadian is entitled to ask questions and to be told the facts – whatever they are.
If a new Chief Justice has been identified, we need to hear this from official channels. So far, we have only heard from the lips of Mr Gibson, but that is not a matter of any moment at this juncture, for he cannot appoint himself.
What we need to be told from the Government is who, if anyone, has been identified as the next Chief Justice and the appointment needs to be made in short order. Something seems quite wrong with the way the process of appointment is being handled.
