BARBADOS IS GAINING a reputation it would rather do without. It is one of dissatisfaction with the long delays in the court process, and it is no longer just a perception.
So when the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) spoke last week, once again, at the tardiness of the judiciary in Barbados, it was not a good feeling for any of its proud citizens.
These continual complaints about delays in the administration and delivery of justice are leaving a terrible stain on the island’s reputation. The tardiness highlighted shows why the judiciary, as the institution responsible for ensuring the rule of law, must go the extra mile to deliver excellent customer service in a timely manner.
No one can deny that the duties of a judge are onerous and that an increasing number of litigations are ending up before the law courts. But those issues are of no concern to the individual or business waiting years for a resolution to their lawsuit.
That there are problem with the system is obvious. Those responsible must find the solutions. The judiciary as the final interpreter of the law is critical in ensuring the rule of law and protection of civil liberties and human rights. As such it should have an unblemished record.
So that is why the public will be concerned about the persistent CCJ’s criticisms, which would make the country the joke of the day across the region.
Some may argue that the time has come to categorise delays as a form of judicial misconduct and therefore the offenders should be held accountable.
But even before we reach that stage we should agree that judges must be held to the same standards as other employees in today’s world of work. Their efficient and effective use of judicial time, along with performance, must be measured. A judge should know what is his annual grade.
This means that the area of training of judges must become a priority and a continuum. Today the world is changing and it is obvious a judge does not know everything and, like a practitioner in any other vocation, must be exposed to constant training to keep abreast of what now informs decisions.
We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that because someone was an outstanding attorney, whether at the public or private bar, that automatically qualifies them to be a good judge. That has been an assumption long held by many.
It has been considered taboo to speak of judges and their work except in flattering terms. So those holding this exalted office were seen not only as learned men, but also as faultless. The CCJ has certainly highlighted glaring weaknesses in such perceptions which we have avoided discussing publicly.
All Barbadians desire of the judicial system is for it to work well and continually do better.
