On the
Judges Remuneration Resolution
Hon. House of Assembly

Wednesday 14th March, 2007
 

Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the Resolution now before this Honourable House has given rise to a good deal of media attention in the public forum.  Regrettably, erronoeus and misleading assertions have been made about our judiciary which is much respected for its independence and impartiality.

Some might note the season that we are in, and suggest that this is perhaps an occasion when the least said is the best course.  However it would be remiss of me as Attorney-General not to comment upon the impression given that the Government is neglectful of its obligations under the Constitution to the Judiciary.

As I have said previously both in this Honourable House and in public, the Government is cognisant of its duty under the Judges Remuneration and Pensions Act.  Accordingly, the government had made by September 2006 the decision to appoint the said commission and was taking requisite steps to implement the said decision.    However it was not possible until 10th November, 2006 that the necessary instruments of appointment could be issued.

 
The Membership, Mr. Speaker, shows that the Commission was made up of persons fully acquainted with the needs of members of the Judiciary and the demands of their office, the aspirations of members of the Bar, the economic conditions of The Bahamas and the demands on the public purse.

I would venture to say that every member of the Judiciary shares the view that improvement of their terms and conditions are not divorced from other relevant criteria and therefore cannot be looked at in a vacuum. That these decisions are not made in a vacuum was recognized by the Chief Justice of the United States in his 2007 report that has been much quoted in the media.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that all relevant criteria must be considered does not mean that the Government will not pursue every effort to ameliorate the conditions of service of the Judiciary of The Bahamas. As was indicated by the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister, save for the recommendation that pensions be linked to the cost of living index, the government proposes acceptance of the recommendations of the Commission.

Also, as has already been announced, the government has decided to construct the new state of the art Judicial Complex at the existing Ministry of Foreign Affairs site.

I would also want to make clear Mr. Speaker that the government does not link the improvement of conditions of service to the conditions of service of agencies of the executive.

Mr. Speaker, the Government is very conscious of the status and contribution to the country of the Judiciary, which it holds in high esteem.  Mr. Speaker such respect does not restrain reasonably justifiable criticism. Our Judiciary, like the judiciary in flourishing democracies, I would opine, is not afraid of such criticism. All who serve the public recognize that the very public that we serve may criticize. But, unwarranted, unfounded and illogical criticism is not to be encouraged.

The recommendations of the Strachan’s Commission are wide ranging from increases in monetary terms to innovations in ancillary conditions such as allowances in respect of education for two dependent children of a Justice and sabbatical leave for the Honourable Chief Justice and President respectively.

Mr. Speaker each of us has a copy of the Report.  It is not my intention to allude to the details of the recommendations.  Suffice it to say Mr. Speaker they may not in the views of some address all the needs of the Judiciary but in my view they reasonably do so and are the basis for further redress by the Government acting on behalf of the people of The Bahamas.  Critics and observers about independence of various agencies and branches of governance have yet to devise a way whereby the Government of a country has no say in the promulgation of benefits to any of the branches of governance and any organ of the state.

An examination of the Judges’ Remuneration and Pensions Act would show that there are two distinct procedures, one under sections 3 and the other under 4 whereby existing conditions of the Judiciary can be addressed.

Mr. Speaker prior to the enactment of section 4 in 2000 the procedure adopted was under section 3. Section 3 does not provide for the appointment of a Commission.  Under section 3 salaries and benefits are reviewed by government and changed by Order. Did the pursuit of the procedure available prior to 2000 make a Judge consider himself or herself less independent in thought and judgment or give rise to a right thinking individual to conclude so.  I would without hesitation and fear of contradiction say that such a thought was unimaginable and would be unfounded in The Bahamas.

Indeed Mr. Speaker, a quick review of the international media will demonstrate that The Bahamas is not alone in dealing with the matter of remuneration of judges and a possible link to judicial independence.

Mr. Speaker on the matter of independence of the judiciary, I would urge all Bahamians from our youth in civics classes in elementary and high school to those in the University of The Bahamas to read the judgment in R v Keith Aaron Jones. This landmark judgment is a carefully researched, elucidated and explained opinion on the independence of the judiciary. The author of that Judgement Madam Senior Justice Anita Allen found that she was not “constitutionally infirmed” and doubted that there could be any “legitimate doubt” about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

Indeed Mr. Speaker, Bahamians and other observers can note that all members of the Higher Judiciary, save for one judge, who has now, I am advised by February 2007 recommenced hearing of cases, have continued to sit and at no time did they stop hearing cases.  We owe these hard working people a very significant debt of gratitude. The confidence that is reposed in our Judicial System and in our democracy is in no small measure due to their Herculean efforts and dedicated service.

I should also note that we are now preparing budget estimates for the budget year 2007 – 2008. The Judiciary implements its own budget. As usual, we are in close liaison with them so that as much as can be allocated be given to continue the improvements to our system.

• System not perfect but is working and enjoys the confidence of Bahamians and internationally.
• Would not have $20B in foreign investment if there were not such confidence.
• Lawyers in particular should recall their primary responsibility is to the court. Irresponsible and unfounded and illogical criticisms of that institution cannot and will not and should not be supported.
• Improvements can and have been made:
    o Last 2 sessions no cases dropped out due avoidable incidents such as unavailable witnesses.
    o Court reporters pilot starts 1st week April for 4 weeks

Mr. Speaker I invite Honourable Members to  give their approval to the Resolution and thereby enabling the requisite Orders to be made, the contents of some of which, are already projected in the drafts appended to the Resolution.