HGP Nightly News – Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall says he will continue to speak out on judicial matters when he believes the administration of justice is failing, arguing that his position in government gives him a responsibility to defend the public interest.
Nandlall made the declaration Tuesday night while addressing the delicate balance between judicial independence and public accountability.
He rejected the notion that judicial independence should prevent public discussion or criticism of the Judiciary, saying citizens must have legitimate avenues through which concerns about the administration of justice can be raised.
At the same time, Nandlall stressed that criticism must not cross the line into attacks on the integrity or motives of individual judicial officers.
“You have a right to criticise the Judiciary. But you must do so without casting aspersions on the integrity of the officer. You must not be motivated by malice,” he said.
Nandlall said the Judiciary’s insulation from direct approaches by members of the public is necessary to protect judicial independence. But that separation, he argued, makes other forms of accountability even more important.
“The Judiciary stands out. The ordinary man can’t walk up to a judge and raise an issue about the administration of justice,” he said.
“Because of insulation, members of the public who feel aggrieved, who have a matter, don’t have that access, so they have to have another access.”
He pointed to the Judiciary’s Code of Ethics and constitutional requirements governing public funds as examples of mechanisms that allow scrutiny without compromising judicial independence.
Nandlall also highlighted the Time Limit for Judicial Decisions Act 2009, which provides a 120-day period for judges to deliver written decisions or reasons after a matter has concluded.
While the Caribbean Court of Justice has recently determined that the 120-day provision is directory rather than mandatory, Nandlall said the period remains a useful benchmark when considering how quickly judicial decisions are delivered.
He acknowledged that while most judicial officers issue decisions in a timely manner, some matters take considerably longer.
Nandlall also invoked the 1936 Privy Council decision Ambard v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, which recognised the public’s right to criticise judicial acts in good faith, provided the criticism does not attribute improper motives or undermine the administration of justice.
“Justice is not a cloistered virtue,” Nandlall quoted from the judgment.
But it was his comments about his own responsibilities that gave the discussion a sharper edge.
Nandlall said that as Attorney General, he represents the public interest and cannot simply remain silent when he believes there are serious problems within the administration of justice.
“I am Attorney General. I protect and represent the public’s interest, and if the administration of justice or a judicial officer is not behaving in a manner that is detrimental to the public interest, it is my obligation to speak,” he said.
“A minister of justice cannot seek refuge in silence when there is a miscarriage of justice taking place. That’s not an option available to a minister of justice.”
Nandlall said he would continue to comment critically on judicial issues where he believes it is warranted, while maintaining that his comments should remain within the boundaries of good-faith public criticism.
