Editorial | Justice Sykes' new conundrum

Bryan Sykes, Jamaica's acting chief justice, faces a conundrum.

Last weekend, in a speech at a court-management seminar, he laid out some sensible ideas to improve efficiency in the island's justice system, including the use of technology and a more robust analysis of data to track how efficiently judges manage their cases and, ultimately, which one is best suited for what kind of proceedings.

He also believes that lawyers are too long-winded in court, often "talking for the sake of talking or because you have the ability to speak", or engage in unnecessary cross-examination of witnesses, wasting valuable judicial time. This observation, of course, comes against the backdrop of the backlog of nearly half a million cases in Jamaica's court system.

"We can't continue to do things in the way we have been doing," said Justice Sykes in relation not only to the loquacious counsel, but a broad range of management procedures in the court system. The implication, therefore, is that he expects to make changes.

Except that he mightn't get the opportunity to do so. After all, Justice Sykes is only acting head of the judiciary, since the start of February, and there is no guarantee, despite the promises by the Government, that he will be confirmed in the job. And therein lies part of the conundrum faced by the acting chief justice, created by the less-than-thoughtful, and we dare say clumsy, and perhaps unconstitutional approach by Prime Minister Andrew Holness, in naming a successor to Justice Zaila McCalla, who retired at the end of January.

We are of the school that believes that it wasn't in the contemplation of the framers of Jamaica's Constitution that someone wouldn't be named to act as chief justice when a clear vacancy exists, such as in this case, law, and with a retirement age of 70 - a fact known even before his or her appointment. Indeed, we subscribe to an interpretation of the applicability of Section 99 in cases of emergency, or in a circumstance where the preferred and declared choice is not immediately available and an acting appointment is made in the interim.

Which brings us to the second and larger part of the conundrum of Prime Minister Holness' creation, through which Justice Sykes has to delicately navigate if he is to preserve the independence of the judiciary, not only in fact, but also perception. The latter is important in maintaining confidence in the judicial system.

LURKING DANGER

Mr Holness, in announcing Justice Sykes' acting appointment, said that "actions that brings (sic) results will determine (his permanent) assumption of the role". In other words, Justice Sykes was being put on probation and would be required to perform to the satisfaction of the prime minister, without anyone knowing the criteria by which he would be judged.

In that statement lurked the danger of the usurpation of the independence of the judiciary and the concept of the separation of powers. Mr Holness initially doubled down on the rightness of his approach, although the Cabinet subsequently made a retreat of sorts from his declaration.

So, now comes Justice Sykes' prescriptions for addressing inefficiencies in the justice system - a declared issue of concern for the prime minister and a basis on which he would judge Bryan Sykes' worthiness for permanent elevation as chief justice.

We have no doubt that these thoughts would never enter the calculus in Justice Sykes' determination of what will make for a better justice system. Mr Holness, nonetheless, gave to cynics fodder as to whether Justice Sykes was playing to the gallery of one. That's another reason Mr Holness should make the appointment permanent now!