Members of the judiciary who have been appointed temporarily, and hence work on contract, are not being disadvantaged and their ability to adjudicate independently is not under threat.
Attorney General Dale Marshall made that clear recently, as he also stressed that all of the appointments in question were constitutional.
Marshall was responding to what he called “another red herring” raised by Opposition Leader Ralph Thorne recently as the House of Assembly debated, and later passed, the Public Service (Appointments) Bill, 2025.
Marshall, who is also Minister of Legal Affairs, said that appointing temporary judges was permitted under the Constitution in circumstances where more of these jurists were needed beyond the 13 allowed under the Supreme Court Of Adjudicature Act.
He explained: “TheSupreme Court of Adjudicature Act in Section Four says that the High Court shall consist of the Chief Justice and 13 judges. That’s the number that is stipulated.
“But in Section 82(2) of the Constitution, it says that if the Chief Justice at any time feels that the business of the court is such that it requires the appointment of additional judges, those additional judges can be appointed on a temporary basis.
“If you are 13, any other judges that you bring on have to be a contract, because you can’t appoint more than 13, plain and simple, and this was so when the number of judges was nine. It was so when the number of judges was five.”
The Member of Parliament for St Joseph said this meant that “the Constitution recognises that there may come a time when the number of judges that has been statutorily set will not be sufficient to discharge the work that’s before the Supreme Court, and it gives the Chief Justice the opportunity to bring on additional judges, but because you can’t appoint them permanently, the only way you can bring them on is on contract”.
