Dear editor,

I am very troubled by Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ appointment of Justice Brian Sykes as acting Chief Justice. I am not concerned about the temporary nature of the appointment but moreso the PM’s justification for such an appointment. In announcing the appointment, Holness asserted that Sykes’ permanent appointment would depend on his performance.

This statement is a clear interference of the PM in the judiciary. My questions to Mr Holness are:

1) What will be rubric or scale on which Justice Sykes will be measured upon?

2) Is it the soundness of his judgement?

3) Is it the funding of the judiciary?

If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is yes, then you are interfering in the judiciary. If the answer to question 3 is also yes, then the blame of our judicial weakness should be at the feet of the central Government.

The PM should be aware that the weaknesses in the judiciary are tied to central Government failure to adequately fund the judiciary.

Over the years, the Executive arm of Government has been slow to increase the number of courtrooms, appoint more judges, modernise the database and employ more court staff.

By doing all of the above, the justice system should improve. The justice system improvement has little or nothing to do with the performance of the Chief Justice but more with the funding required from the Cabinet (Prime Minister and Ministry of Finance). Any discussion about performance is troublesome and borders on judicial interference. The quality of Sykes’ judgments is subject to the Privy Council, not Mr Holness.

The funding required for the proper administration of justice, however, is in the hands of the Cabinet.

Oneil Hall