Copyright trinidadexpress
Reference is drawn to your editorial “The curious case of CJ Boodoo-singh” (October 23). I am in agreement that the process should be more decidedly transparent and deliberate. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President on the advice or consultation of the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader. The President is not restricted to their choice and is free to make his own selection. Civic society should also be consulted. There is substantial public and legal fraternity (judicial) support for the (sudden) selection by acting President Wade Mark of Judge Ronnie Boodoosingh as CJ to replace the controversial Ivor Archie, who retired as chief justice on October 22. As pointed out by detractors and critics, members of the public, the legal fraternity, and the Opposition, during several times in his career, because of controversial behaviour and decision-makings in office, there were calls for Archie’s resignation. The public and legal fraternity now remind that the selection of then Appeal Court judge Archie itself was controversial. Archie was appointed as CJ by the then-president on the advice of then-PM Patrick Manning, without the agreement of then-opposition leader Basdeo Panday. The then-opposition and the public were of the view that there were far more superior and qualified judges than Archie. There was wide-scale public outcry against Archie’s appointment and, subsequently, several controversial actions while serving as head of the Judiciary. The CJ survived and only recently decided to step down. In contrast with the then appointment of Archie, engagements with the public and legal fraternity reveal that Justice Boodoosingh is the most qualified judge for the position of CJ. When Archie announced his planned retirement in September, I consulted dozens of members of the legal fraternity, MPs (inclu-ding senators), civil society, and the public for their preference among current judges to replace the departing CJ. While much of the public expressed a lack of knowledge and did not have much to say about the replacement of Archie, Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh was the overwhelmingly preferred choice among the legal fraternity, including among judges (as well judges and magistrates, as well as retired judges and magistrates) and the Parliament, as well as former MPs and those familiar with his work. The public was more familiar with the names of Boodoosingh, Geoffrey Henderson, Prakash Moosai, Nolan Bereaux, Frank Seepersad, Gillian Lucky, Maria Wilson, Carol Gobin, Mark Mohammed, and a few others among the dozens of judges. Boodoosingh was the overwhelming choice in the legal fraternity and among the public who are familiar with him and other judges. The public and lawyers had only positives about Boodoosingh. Since acting President Mark’s decision to appoint Justice Boodoosingh as CJ, the public and those who know the CJ unreservedly endorsed the selection. Boodoosingh is described as a brilliant scholar who wrote excellent judgments (with depth of reasonings) and who has been viewed as very hardworking. He is viewed as very apolitical (politically neutral) and brings jurisprudential competence to the office. There is full-throated endorsement for Boodoosingh by lawyers, judges, governing MPs and senators, some Independent senators, members of the bar, as well as the public. It is felt that he will ensure that excellent decisions are made from the Court of Appeal and that the judicial system functions efficiently and fairly. In all probability, Boodoosingh is expected to be an outstanding CJ; he has been an excellent jurist. With a mandatory retirement age of 70, he will enjoy a long tenure and, therefore, an opportunity to influence the direction of the court as well as jurisprudence. Hopefully, his appointment will result in an improved judicial system in which true justice is dispensed, especially to the underprivileged and marginalised. I feel major appointments like the CJ and Elections and Boundaries commissioners should not only be done by the President but with agreement by both the PM and Opposition Leader. A person should not be parachu-ted into the CJ position without widespread, deep consultation with the bar, civil society, and the public on who they feel is best for the job, who will be judicially objective, and who will make decisions without fear and favour. The process should not only involve politicians. And the position should be subjected to term limits. But this can only happen if there is constitutional amendment. The constitution should be reformed on the Chief Justice appointment, as well as on other matters of governance. This will help to prevent the actual or perceived politicisation of the CJ and other judicial appointment processes and ensure transparency. The process must become more competitive and transparent, with less room for partisan political interference when the President, who is chosen by a dominant party, solely makes the appointment. And the process for appointment should be more transparent—as well as agreed upon by the head of State, the PM, and the Opposition Leader after consultation with the public. Dr Vishnu Bisram
