A few days ago, I learned that a judge had recused himself from a court matter because of the actions of two people. This means he is no longer interested in hearing the case, and has requested another judge be assigned to it.
Did I hear correctly? A judge making the decision that he will no longer hear a case because of what two people said and did? The court does not spell out that this interference was political but one might assume it was, based on the parties involved: a politician and two political appointees. If politicians or politically appointed people because of their actions, have caused a judge to recuse himself from a case, in my opinion this boils down to political interference in a court matter. This is something that should be of concern to every Saint Lucian citizen.
Let’s take a look at what transpired, based on an order from the court dated July 23,2023 and citing a case brought by Mr. Allen Chastanet in his personal capacity and as the Parliamentary Representative for Micoud South against the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the Attorney General for Saint Lucia.
What I understand from the Court Order is that two of the litigants communicated with the office of the Registrar of the High Court to inquire about a related application for an interim injunction by Mr. Chastanet.
According to the Court Order, these litigants went to the Registrar to make their inquiries on the same day of the hearing of the Interim Injunction. Added to that, correspondence pertaining to the case was given to the Registrar of the High Court by one of the parties named in the proceedings, for the attention of the judge, unknown to the lawyers involved.
Think about that, dear reader:correspondence was sent to the judge by someone who was one of the parties in the case!This correspondence was copied to the political leader and the general secretary of the United Workers Party—who is not involved in the case. The Court Order described this as “extremely egregious.” You may well ask how any of this could have occurred. Proper procedure seems to have been thrown out the window, as if some considered themselves above the law. By the way, the dictionary defines egregious as “something remarkably and conspicuously bad, offensive or shocking.” As for “extremely,” it suggests how seriously the court order considered the behaviour of the interfering parties. Scary barely describes the abuse of power here indicated.
I now call on the Bar Association to comment on this matter. As a gravely concerned citizen, I need clarity on the ramifications of this statement by a court of law. So offensive, so shocking is what transpired that the assigned judge in the matter decided to remove himself.
Dear fellow citizen: Does what you have read here give you confidence in our justice system? Or does it suggest political interference in court matters is the new normal?
This matter must concern all right-thinking citizens, regardless of your occupation or economic status, regardless of political affiliation. We need reassurance that our judges are protected from the threats of politicians, tacit or otherwise. That we all are equal before the law. We have here the perfect opportunity for the powers that be, the Chief Justice as well as the Bar Association, to disprove what many of our people believe to be true: that our justice system is anything but just, and that before long our country will go the way of Haiti—where criminal gangs rule!
