Dear Editor,
The Jamaican Bar Association is aware of comments that were made by the Member of Parliament for St Andrew North Central Karl Samuda in response to the ongoing dispute between residents and a property owner concerning property at 85 Red Hills Road.
The minister is recorded as saying that, “Any judge who declares that a person who claims to own the land, whether it is so or not, has the right to evict the people is not to be tolerated.”
This public statement infringes on the principle of separation of powers and is to be treated as unfortunate, ill-considered and worthy of collective rejection. Jamaica has a parliamentary system of democracy that holds firm to the principle of separation of powers and such a long-standing parliamentarian should encourage respect for the principle.
The separation of powers recognises that there are three main branches of government, each with different core functions: the executive, headed by the prime minister and his Cabinet; the legislature or Parliament, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate; and the judiciary, comprising the judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. Parliament’s primary duty, as representatives of the people, is to make laws that allow for good governance. The judiciary’s primary role is to interpret or apply the law in particular cases before it, whether it be between private citizens or disputes between a citizen and the State, including protecting the rights of citizens against the arbitrary exercise of power by the State.
For this reason, judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal enjoy security of tenure once they are appointed. In that way, regardless of their rulings, judges are insulated from arbitrary removal because of displeasure on the part of the executive or Parliament.
Judges may make mistakes in applying the law or, occasionally, the case argued may identify a lacuna in the law or bring about an unexpected result. In the case of an error, the appropriate remedy is an appeal. Where there is a lacuna, or an unexpected result, the remedy is for Parliament to amend the particular statutory provision or pass new laws.
Public criticism of judicial decisions should also be embraced because, “Justice is not a cloistered virtue: She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful …comments of ordinary men.” However, Minister Samuda’s comments went beyond mere criticism of a judge’s decision and, as a minister of Government and Member of Parliament, he must recognise that the comments made by him could be interpreted as a call to ignore court rulings and treat them with contempt. Any statement or effort to undermine or erode the independence of the judiciary is to be rejected.
In our respectful view, it is Minister Samuda’s comments that should not be tolerated and we wish to expressly call on all civic-minded individuals to likewise repudiate the sentiment expressed by him.
Sherry Ann McGregor
President
Jamaican Bar Association
jambarassoc@gmail.com
The Jamaican Bar Association is aware of comments that were made by the Member of Parliament for St Andrew North Central Karl Samuda in response to the ongoing dispute between residents and a property owner concerning property at 85 Red Hills Road.
The minister is recorded as saying that, “Any judge who declares that a person who claims to own the land, whether it is so or not, has the right to evict the people is not to be tolerated.”
This public statement infringes on the principle of separation of powers and is to be treated as unfortunate, ill-considered and worthy of collective rejection. Jamaica has a parliamentary system of democracy that holds firm to the principle of separation of powers and such a long-standing parliamentarian should encourage respect for the principle.
The separation of powers recognises that there are three main branches of government, each with different core functions: the executive, headed by the prime minister and his Cabinet; the legislature or Parliament, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate; and the judiciary, comprising the judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. Parliament’s primary duty, as representatives of the people, is to make laws that allow for good governance. The judiciary’s primary role is to interpret or apply the law in particular cases before it, whether it be between private citizens or disputes between a citizen and the State, including protecting the rights of citizens against the arbitrary exercise of power by the State.
For this reason, judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal enjoy security of tenure once they are appointed. In that way, regardless of their rulings, judges are insulated from arbitrary removal because of displeasure on the part of the executive or Parliament.
Judges may make mistakes in applying the law or, occasionally, the case argued may identify a lacuna in the law or bring about an unexpected result. In the case of an error, the appropriate remedy is an appeal. Where there is a lacuna, or an unexpected result, the remedy is for Parliament to amend the particular statutory provision or pass new laws.
Public criticism of judicial decisions should also be embraced because, “Justice is not a cloistered virtue: She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful …comments of ordinary men.” However, Minister Samuda’s comments went beyond mere criticism of a judge’s decision and, as a minister of Government and Member of Parliament, he must recognise that the comments made by him could be interpreted as a call to ignore court rulings and treat them with contempt. Any statement or effort to undermine or erode the independence of the judiciary is to be rejected.
In our respectful view, it is Minister Samuda’s comments that should not be tolerated and we wish to expressly call on all civic-minded individuals to likewise repudiate the sentiment expressed by him.
Sherry Ann McGregor
President
Jamaican Bar Association
jambarassoc@gmail.com