“Everybody who is paid from public funds is accountable to the taxpayers who pay their salaries. And the Judiciary is no exception.”

One is entitled to wonder whether the Private Notice Question around Chief Justice Bernard Sik Yuen’s nomination of Judge Paul Lam Shang Leen instead of Judge Eddy Balancy for the position of interim senior Puisne judge was not a coy wink to the prime minister. At any rate, it was a wasted opportunity of gargantuan proportions. The answer was predictable: The Chief Justice acted within the powers he holds. So what did the leader of the opposition expect the prime minister to say other than to quote section 77(5) of the constitution and say something along the lines of “The Chief Justice did not break any law and what goes on in the Judiciary is none of my business”?

“There must be reasons he was passed over,” Ramgoolam added. True. Loads. Some may confirm the suspicions in the minds of many of us mortals. Others may be even more worrying and may be typical of what goes on in many spheres of this country. But some could be rather commendable and very humane: considering Judge Paul Lam Shang Leen’s age, his chances of staying in the profession until such time as he becomes Chief Justice are not great. So, offering him the opportunity to be in this position for a few days could be a good reason.

But all these hypotheses are just that – hypotheses. Unless the Chief Justice himself confirms the reasons for his move, we will never know. And it is not from parliament that we are likely to get the answer either. Worse, the leader of the opposition gave the prime minister an unhoped-for opportunity to settle his own scores – something he did not hesitate to jump on to remind the House that in 1995, with the impending retirement of then-Chief Justice Forget, Justice Pillay was passed over in favour  of the present Chief Justice Sik Yuen. “The reason was that the previous MSM government was adamantly opposed to Judge Pillay as Chief Justice because he ruled against the government when he reinstated senior police officers fired by the government in connection with the drug commission that was established,” Ramgoolam said, probably thankful to Bérenger for having given him the opportunity to bash the latter’s ally.  

But to be fair to the leader of the opposition, he did seize the opportunity to talk about a much more relevant debate in parliament concerning the Judiciary. Private arbitration, which is giving the Judiciary a bad name and tarnishing the image of impartiality which is essential to the commodity they sell: credibility. And Bérenger is right in that “Judges cannot take any other work without the approval of the president”. Now, last time Weekly interviewed President Purryag – about a year ago – he said he had not approved any applications and “there are no applications in front of me for approval”. Isn’t it time, then, someone looked into how some judges are still practising private arbitration and find out who exactly approved their applications?

The prime minister’s statement saying, “The president has been told by the Judiciary that it’s not for the executive to tell them what and what not to do” is not good enough and he should not be allowed to get away with it. Everybody who is paid from public funds is accountable to the taxpayers who pay their salaries. And the Judiciary is no exception.

The executive has the power to legislate. If they don’t have the courage to pass laws which may rub the powerful up the wrong way, then maybe they should not be sitting in our national assembly in the first place.