Dear Editor,

I am very troubled by Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s appointment of Justice Bryan Sykes as acting chief justice of Jamaica. I am not concerned about the temporary nature of the appointment, but more so the prime minister’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 prime minister in the judiciary. In fact, any discussion about performance is troublesome and borders on judicial interference.

My questions to Holness are:

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

2) Is it the soundness of his judgements?

3) Is it the funding of the judiciary?

The prime minister should be aware that the weaknesses in the judiciary are tied to central government’s failure to adequately fund the judiciary. Over the years, the executive arm of the Government has refused to significantly 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’s improvement has little or nothing to do with the performance of the chief justice but more with the funding allocated by the Government.

Thus, the question arises, why is the prime minister attempting to interfere with the judiciary, specifically Sykes’ permanent appointment?

Oneil Hall

Cave Hill, Barbados

oneil.hall@hotmail.com