Minister Lightbourne’s dilemma
We feel rather sorry for Senator Dorothy Lightbourne, our attorney general and minister of justice. For we get the impression that much of her endeavours to mobilise already scarce resources to effect the reconstruction of an outdated and sometimes inept justice system, are dependent on the goodwill of others, namely a broke and seemingly confused administration and a population which, according to Assistant Commissioner of Police Justice Felice’s most recent pronouncement, is 85 per cent corrupt.
It’s not much to go into the battle against corruption with, especially since the minister, God bless her, is determined to bring a measure of honesty to the process.
Nevertheless, we are not — especially in the absence of alternative solutions — about to sniff at her efforts, hampered as they must be by political and other realities.
However, we feel constrained to point out to Minister Lightbourne, the dangers of getting caught up in the rhetoric that often poses as a mask for inertia.
As the minister pointed out at yesterday’s legal seminar hosted by the Cornwall and Jamaica Bar associations, the challenges that face the justice system are decades old.
And of the nearly 200 recommendations made by the Jamaica Justice System Reform task force, less than half have been implemented to date.
Some 80 are scheduled to be implemented over the next five years. However, this timetable is likely to be derailed as a result of the worldwide recession.
In the meantime, according to the minister, financial constraints have forced her to narrow down her focus from the seven strategic objectives under which the recommendations were classified to three, namely:
* The fair and timely resolution of cases;
* The establishment of a sound court structure; and
* The strengthening of the public’s trust and confidence in the system.
On the face of it, this so-called narrowing down sounds like the result of a carefully considered exercise. But a look at the other four strategies — improving access to justice, strengthening the judiciary and workforce, strengthening linkages between justice sector institutions, and implementing a social component to the delivery of justice — seems to indicate very little by way of substance in the minister’s explanation.
For one cannot be considered in isolation of the others.
And those strategic classifications which have been postponed, for want of a better word, are inextricable components of those that have been given priority.
As we understand it, there can be no fair and timely resolution of cases without those four ‘postponed’ strategies.
And if, according to the minister, resource constraints have made it necessary to narrow the focus from seven to three objectives, we are forced to wonder about the level of compromise that is going to take place as far as the reforms of the justice system are concerned.
And if at this very early stage of the game we have to wonder about that, then we are all fighting a losing battle.