Judging one's entry into politics
Funny how life unfolds. Two weeks after writing how one should judge exiting the political stage, there are events causing me to ponder on political entries.
An unfolding campaign issue is the resignation of High Court judge Herbert Volney and early retirement of Acting Senior Magistrate Ramraj Harripersad in order to run for political office in this year's General Election as potential UNC candidates. The Hon. Prime Minister raised concerns about the effect this may have had on the judiciary, especially with regards to judgements against the government, and Chief Justice Ivor Archie expressed a number of concerns regarding the perception of impartiality. Head of the Law Association, Martin Daly, is due to release their official stance on this in the coming days.
While I await further information from folks in legal circles, I have some questions as an observer.
If there's a risk of bias when one goes from being a judge to being a politician, why should it not exist in the other direction? For example, why should one not be concerned about Gillian Lucky's current ability as a temporary judge given her previous career as a politician?
If the matter is about timing - between exiting the judiciary and entering politics - why should a period of time reduce the perceived risk of bias during the judicial career? Further, if time does reduce the risk, how much time is enough time?
If it is about the way you exit the judiciary, why should retiring be less risky than resigning? I ask this against a view that, normally, only retired judges enter politics.
Finally, do judges vote in national elections? If they do, why doesn't voting for a party cause as much concern about risk of bias as joining the party?
If I examine the context of Justice Volney's comments while on the bench and the way he transitioned from judge to politician, I can understand why the Chief Justice would comment about the 'abuse of a privileged platform for a collateral objective' and 'the perception of impartiality that must be preserved'. Depending on who you speak to, there are differing perceptions about Justice Volney's transition. One of these is that he could've been partial during his judicial career. Another is that he's just a citizen expressing concerns about the administration of justice and deciding to fight for change more directly via a new role (since his comments from the bench weren't working).
I think it would be difficult for Justice Volney to significantly influence judgements in the High Court since the decisions are arrived at by juries. However, let's say he can influence the outcome of a case, such as through accepting or over-ruling a lawyer's statement in court. I would think that to make a clear pronouncement about Justice Volney being partial, one would have to have done some study of the cases Justice Volney presided over in order to make meaningful accusations. Was any study done, and if so, what were the results? Hypothetical allegations about a political party's unlawful influence over the judiciary cannot remain unchallenged, especially in the charged atmosphere of a political campaign.
I'm allowing for the human trait of taking perception for fact, when it isn't necessarily so. I suspect both the Hon. Prime Minister and the Chief Justice had a similar grasp of how perception becomes fact in public minds when they made their statements, though one is probably relying on it being so while the other fears it has.
- Edmund Gall's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Pingback
[...] Judging one's entry into politics | KnowTnT.com (Beta) www.knowtnt.com/node/153 – view page – cached Funny how life unfolds. Two weeks after writing how one should judge exiting the political stage, there are events causing me to ponder on political entries. Tweets about this link Topsy.Data.Twitter.User['knowtnt'] = {"location":"Trinidad and Tobago","photo":"http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/721436715/knowtntscreenie_normal.png","name":"KnowTnT","url":"http://twitter.com/knowtnt","nick":"knowtnt","description":"The continuous unauthorized biography of Trinidad and Tobago. Bloggers from T&T welcome. ","influence":""}; knowtnt: “Judging one's entry into politics http://tinyurl.com/29ttljj by Edmund Gall ” 3 hours ago view tweet retweet Filter tweets [...]
Follow-up articles
Trinidad Express (30 Apr 2010): http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/nart?id=161646928
- Law Association's response.
C-News Interview of Justice Volney (29 Apr 2010): http://www.ctntworld.com/LocalArticles.aspx?id=20374
C-News interview of the Law Association's Martin Daly (29 Apr 2010): http://www.ctntworld.com/LocalArticles.aspx?id=20390
In 2005 B.C. Canada Supreme Court Judge Wally Oppal left the bench to contest the Provincial Elections. When his party won he was made Attorney General and served until 2009 when he lost his seat after shifting to contest a marginal seat. Oppal was the first Indo-Canadian Supreme Court Judge: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca
Dr Rameh Deosaran's commentary (02 May 2010): http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/nart?id=161649680
Pingback
[...] KnowTnT.com and Trinidad diaspora blogger Jumbie's Watch comment on “the resignation of High Court [...]
Pingback
[...] 1, 2010 by Christian Khabay After reading Edmund Gall's insightful piece "Judging one's entry into politics" as well as listening to Mr. Justice Volney (personally I must still accord Justice Volney the [...]
Pingback
[...] the original here: Judging one's entry into politics | KnowTnT.com (Beta) Share and [...]
Pingback
[...] here: Judging one's entry into politics | KnowTnT.com (Beta) Share and [...]
Why we fail
Edmond, having read your post, I feel it appropriate to put forward some thoughts on it because I am deeply troubled by the actions of Mr. Volney. The Chief Justice's comment was that he was concerned about the 'abuse of a privileged platform for a collateral objective' and 'the perception of impartiality that must be preserved'. Both limbs of this extract need to be carefully considered. I find that you have considered it from the perspective of bias only, and not from the perspective of use of the platform for political purposes.
Mr. Volney's actions have the potential effect of bringing the bench firmly into the realm of politics. Consider this... how many other judges may at this point be considering a descent into the realm of politics? When you next hear a judge pronounce (or ajudicate) on issues which have an impact upon the daily cut and thrust of local politics, can you be sure that the judgment or statement is not motivated by political aspirations? I suggest not, and if that is correct, then the press (and by extension the population) must now begin to criticise and distrust judges in much the manner that they currently criticise, distrust and malign politicians. How frightening a world in which a judgment is scrutinised for its political nuances so that some aspiring politician can use it to further his or her career.
Mr. Volney, and the Chief Justice for that matter, have made several statements in recent months which have been critical of the Government, which statements, having been made from the bench have the legitimacy of supposed absolute impartiality. I and the public at large accepted the impartiality of those statements and gave great weight to their content because, after all, they are judges and who is more qualified or can be better trusted to comment fairly, intelligently and impartially on any issue which plagues us.
Judicial appointments are effectively lifetime appointments, and in the legal profession, they are generally been seen as a "last career". This is even so in cases where attorneys leave lucrative private practices to become judges (at much lower incomes). Such persons tend to retire as judges and never go back to active private practice, not because they are prevented from doing so, but just because it would be inappropriate. It has always been expected that those who accept the appointment as a judge do so for life, and have a duty far greater than persons in ordinary life to preserve their impartiality both while upon the bench and after their retirement.
While Mr. Volney's move was not unlawful, and by our (abused) local standards of integrity it may be acceptable, it is certainly not consistent with the high traditions of integrity and impartiality upon which the legitimacy of the judiciary is tenuously supported. Those who complain of our society's inability to address our crime problems due to an ineffective police force, an overburdened judiciary, and a general lack of integrity, should mourn the actions of Mr. Volney, and the effect they will have upon the rule of law in Trinidad and Tobago.
I believe that the perception of aloof independence and impartiality which the judiciary the world over has jealously guarded having been tarnished, the population's respect for judges will diminish over time, making the task of repairing our society all the greater. The GORTT v CJ Sharma matter was a case of the politician fighting the judiciary but one in which Mr. Sharma received wide public support because of the legitimate perception of his impartiality and integrity (as opposed to that of the politicians who hounded him). If judges start acting in a way that diminishes that perception, and nothing is more likely to do this than entering politics, they make themselves fair game.
Finally, a postscript. The move from politics to judiciary is much easier to make. People who lose elections fall completely out of politics all the time. An person who aspires to high political office is generally the most partisan of all politicians. On the other hand, how many ex-candidates do you see in politics?
Pingback
[...] In the case of St. Joseph, voters appear to have been more concerned about the allegations made against Mr Swaratsingh in the week (involving money and religion) than with the Herbert Volney's swift transformation from judge to UNC politician. [...]