The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

Although I am disappointed in the Prime Minister’s cavalier attitude to the appointment of a substantive Chief Justice, I have always been more concerned that the method of the appointment of a Chief Justice and the fact that this head of the Judiciary does not control the Budget for this important arm of government, is more of a threat to the independence of the Judiciary.

I have never doubted the independent thinking of the Learned men and women who have held high judicial office. However, the fact that the Chief Justice is chosen by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, always, to my mind, gave the perception that politics were involved in the selection. That this always raises eyebrows became very evident when former Attorney General, Sir Michael Barnett assumed the post, and a similar attitude arose when it was rumoured that present Attorney General, Carl Bethell was being considered for the position.

I recall that during my tenure as Vice President of the Bahamas Bar Council, that body attempted, without success, for the then Chief Justice to have us campaign for the Chief Justice to have control of the Budget of the Judiciary. For presently the purse strings are held by the Executive through the Public Treasury. This also gives the perception that the Judiciary is not independent.

With reference to the present call for the appointment of a substantive Chief Justice, perhaps a time limit should be placed on the appointment of a Chief Justice when the position has been vacated, but also some thought should be given to the method of choosing one and the control of the chief judicial officer of the Judiciary’s purse strings.

JEANNE THOMPSON

Nassau,

May 1, 2018.