A number of days in the past, I discovered {that a} choose had recused himself from a courtroom matter due to the actions of two individuals. This implies he’s now not fascinated with listening to the case, and has requested one other choose be assigned to it.
Did I hear accurately? A choose making the choice that he’ll now not hear a case due to what two individuals stated and did? The courtroom doesn’t spell out that this interference was political however one would possibly assume it was, primarily based on the events concerned: a politician and two political appointees. If politicians or politically appointed individuals due to their actions, have triggered a choose to recuse himself from a case, in my view this boils all the way down to political interference in a courtroom matter. That is one thing that must be of concern to each Saint Lucian citizen.
Let’s check out what transpired, primarily based on an order from the courtroom dated July 23,2023 and citing a case introduced by Mr. Allen Chastanet in his private capability and because the Parliamentary Consultant for Micoud South in opposition to the Speaker of the Home of Meeting and the Lawyer Basic for Saint Lucia.
What I perceive from the Court docket Order is that two of the litigants communicated with the workplace of the Registrar of the Excessive Court docket to inquire about a associated utility for an interim injunction by Mr. Chastanet.
In line with the Court docket Order, these litigants went to the Registrar to make their inquiries on the identical day of the listening to of the Interim Injunction. Added to that, correspondence pertaining to the case was given to the Registrar of the Excessive Court docket by one of many events named within the proceedings, for the eye of the choose, unknown to the legal professionals concerned.
Take into consideration that, expensive reader:correspondence was despatched to the choose by somebody who was one of many events within the case!This correspondence was copied to the political chief and the overall secretary of the United Employees Social gathering—who is just not concerned within the case. The Court docket Order described this as “extraordinarily egregious.” Chances are you’ll effectively ask how any of this might have occurred. Correct process appears to have been thrown out the window, as if some thought of themselves above the legislation. By the way in which, the dictionary defines egregious as “one thing remarkably and conspicuously unhealthy, offensive or stunning.” As for “extraordinarily,” it suggests how critically the courtroom order thought of the behaviour of the interfering events. Scary barely describes the abuse of energy right here indicated.
I now name on the Bar Affiliation to touch upon this matter. As a gravely involved citizen, I want readability on the ramifications of this assertion by a courtroom of legislation. So offensive, so stunning is what transpired that the assigned choose within the matter determined to take away himself.
Pricey fellow citizen: Does what you could have learn right here provide you with confidence in our justice system? Or does it recommend political interference in courtroom issues is the brand new regular?
This matter should concern all right-thinking residents, no matter your occupation or financial standing, no matter political affiliation. We want reassurance that our judges are shielded from the threats of politicians, tacit or in any other case. That all of us are equal earlier than the legislation. We now have right here the proper alternative for the powers that be, the Chief Justice in addition to the Bar Affiliation, to disprove what a lot of our individuals consider to be true: that our justice system is something however simply, and that earlier than lengthy our nation will go the way in which of Haiti—the place legal gangs rule!
