Letters to the Editor

Why didn't Justice Sykes decline the acting appointment?

Tuesday, February 06, 2018

Print this page Email A Friend!


Dear Editor,

That Justice Bryan Sykes has accepted the position of acting chief justice is, not withstanding his stellar career as a jurist, an indictment on him and raises serious questions about his willingness to act on principle.

If, in principle, the appointment of an acting chief justice, in the manner in which it was done by the prime minister, is unconstitutional, as argued by several legal luminaries, then the goodly justice, qualified as he is, should not have accepted the position.

If so many varied legal minds have come to the conclusion that there is something unseemly about the imposition of arbitrary performance standards on the judiciary by the executive, why did Justice Sykes, who is noted for his legal acumen, not come to a similar conclusion and raise objections when the prime minister sought to hijack the constitutional provision of the acting chief justice?

No one would, of course, want to deny the long-suffering justice his ambitions to ascend to high office — by all accounts he is indeed deserving. However, his acceptance of a faulty legal logic — on which the prime minister clearly took no advice — leaves much to be desired.

Furthermore, his acceptance of the position based on the nebulous terms outlined by the prime minister indicates that he is complicit in having the executive interfere with the judiciary. Sykes, upon recognising the unconstitutionality of the prime minister's imposition on the office of the chief justice, should have declined the appointment on principle alone or at least declare his objection upon acceptance of the post.

Is it that he did not come to the conclusion that what the prime minister has proposed will, in effect, violate the principle of separation of powers? If it is that Sykes did not make this logical leap, then that is a serious cause for concern for someone who is to be head of the judiciary.

If he did come to the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, and did not have the guts to take the prime minister to task, then that speaks to the depths of his complicity and should be a disqualifying factor for one who is to be the vanguard of what is already perceived as a corrupt and broken justice system.

Paulton Frankson

paulton.frankson@gmail.com

ADVERTISEMENT




POST A COMMENT

HOUSE RULES

1. We welcome reader comments on the top stories of the day. Some comments may be republished on the website or in the newspaper � email addresses will not be published.

2. Please understand that comments are moderated and it is not always possible to publish all that have been submitted. We will, however, try to publish comments that are representative of all received.

3. We ask that comments are civil and free of libellous or hateful material. Also please stick to the topic under discussion.

4. Please do not write in block capitals since this makes your comment hard to read.

5. Please don't use the comments to advertise. However, our advertising department can be more than accommodating if emailed: advertising@jamaicaobserver.com.

6. If readers wish to report offensive comments, suggest a correction or share a story then please email: community@jamaicaobserver.com.

7. Lastly, read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy



comments powered by Disqus
ADVERTISEMENT

Poll

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Today's Cartoon

Click image to view full size editorial cartoon
ADVERTISEMENT