LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR up front. Nothing contained in this article is written to impugn the character of our Chief Justice Sir Marston Gibson. I know nothing about him personally, and therefore can’t speak to any such matters.
For all I know he might very well be a decent Christian man who delights in kissing old ladies and babies and washing the feet of maidens.
My concerns are about the functioning of the judicial system in Barbados, and whether the benefits that were trumpeted by those who proposed and supported his selection for the post, and then changed the law to allow it to happen, have been realised.
My short answer is: Not by a mile!
And it was only because the Dems did not want to extend the appointment of former BLP MP Sir David Simmons as Chief Justice, although just about everyone with the capacity to judge objectively agreed he was doing a great job, was making meaningful changes and, above all, was non-political in the conduct of his duties.
But then again, all I’m saying may be seriously misplaced since a true Bajan might argue: “Wuh de man din appoint heself.” But I can’t help but conclude that five years after the appointment, rather than showing any meaningful signs of improvement, our system has continued on a path of deterioration.
And while I agree wholeheartedly with Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite that we cannot reasonably blame him, the Prime Minister, or the CJ for the current situation with crime and violence, it would take a lot to convince me, and I am sure countless Barbadians, that the lacklustre approach that characterises so much of how we do business these days is not a significant contributor.
If a fellow does not fear his mother or father, when they order him in at 9 o’clock at night he will still stroll in at 1 a.m. When they say, “If you don’t respect us or the rules of our house you can’t eat here,” he will still pull the fridge door and eat to his heart’s desire.
By the same token, when the Prime Minister, or Attorney General or Chief Justice says we will be tough on crime, but five years later an accused does not know when he will answer a charge, and will get bail three or four times on other charges because the magistrate can’t compel the start of a case, he displays absolutely no fear of the system.
Our judicial system is broken and its deterrent effect hovers between zero and nothing for the truly reckless and hardcore. You think I’m exaggerating? In 2013 Sir Marston said 21 663 cases were filed in the Magistrates’ Courts in 2011, but only 1 316 were “disposed of”.
Let’s do the maths. If we supposed that a similar number of cases were lodged and disposed of each year since then for the following five years, that amounts to 108 315 being lodged and just 6 580 being concluded. That leaves a backlog of more than 100 000 for that period alone.
Now tell me how such a system could drive fear in the hearts of deviant people? Tell me if that does not speak to a broken system. Tell me if that does not amount to a national slap in the face for our hard-working police men and women who investigate and arrest people, only to see them back on the street within weeks on bail because the system is failing – only to arrest them again for subsequent crimes.
And just as the person who holds the position of Chief Justice, regardless of who the office holder is, stands in judgement over Barbadians every day, he or she too must be prepared to be judged by his or her words and action – or lack thereof. Our CJ has had a lot to say about the system, even before he got the job. Interestingly, his commentary has trailed off as the promised positive change has failed to materialise, but I’ll let readers follow the comments over the years.
My final word: Today is exactly five years and two weeks since the appointment of the current Chief Justice: Will those who trumpeted the need to look outside the system for a new head of the judiciary back then come forward and tell the country about the benefits realised from that decision? Who will judge the performance of the judge or those who appointed and were obligated to support him in the post?
