You Are Here: Home » News » President says a judge’s decision would not stand anywhere

President says a judge’s decision would not stand anywhere

The Head of State has come in for some criticism for his statement about an order made by a High Court Judge. The president said that the judge’s decision would not stand anywhere, he went on to add that he doesn’t know what is happening to some of these judges.

 

The president was at the time referring to a decision by Justice Jai Narayan Singh jr that GECOM allocate state funds in an equitable manner to the opposition parties in parliament to pay the parties’ scrutineers in the ongoing registration exercise.

 

Today the party that brought the action the AFC noted that one of the primary functions of the Judiciary is to protect the rights of the citizens against the power of the State.

 

The AFC said the fact that the head of State chose intemperate language to express his dissatisfaction with the decision of a High Court Judge rather than await the decision of the Court of Appeal highlights the growing disrespect and contempt the President harbors for the concept of independence of the Judiciary.

 

The AFC pointed out that it is keenly aware that the constraints of judicial ethics and decorum restrict the ability of members of the Judiciary from responding in public to unwarranted attacks on their character particularly by persons who enjoy immunity from suit. The President enjoys such immunity from being sued.

 

The Head of State gave the distinct impression in his statements on the allocation of funds that the money belonged to his Government and his finance minister to dispense with as they see fit and the distribution should and could not be questioned by the courts.

 

Capitol News understands that various members of the Judiciary and the legal profession and others familiar with the laws and governance issues in the country have also expressed concern about the blurring of the lines of separation of powers of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. One legal source told capitol news that the idea of the separation of powers was to ensure checks and balances in a truly democratic state.

Comments (1)

  • Erick

    In typical PPP faoishn. Dumb down the population so they can pull the wool over the Guyanese eyes.The AFC must vigorously protest this assinine proposal and the AFC must be at the helm of exposing the true impacts of this legislation which is only geared to provide cheap labour, turn Guyana into a sweatshop economy and leave an artificial legacy of improvement for the outgoing administration.The impacts of lowering the age limit for employment will be detrimental to the Guyanese society: It will encourage a higher rate of high school dropouts. Imagine a country where a large number of the skilled and educated have left for greener pastures and the remaining adults only have a grade 8 or 9(equivalent to Forms 2 and 3)education. What sort of productive economy can such a nation promise? It will displace a more skilled adult workforce purely because of the cheap labour a child can provide; afterall, a child does not have rent to pay, a family to upkeep, does not own a car and therefore doesn’t have the overhead that comes with it, etc. etc. It will have the effect of increasing crime (murder, theft,sexual assault and abuse etc) because it’s what ultimately happens in a society where a large population of its adults are jobless and hopeless. It will ensure a perpetual cycle of illiteracy and poverty.The AFC has a mandate to ensure that Guyanese people of every party affiliation understand that such legislation is not in their best interest.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

© 2016 Capitol News Guyana

Scroll to top