Newsday Editorial

THERE is something improper, it seems to us, about Cabinet appointing judges of the Industrial Court. In our system of justice, judges and magistrates are required to be brutally independent which is why they are not only appointed by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission but also enjoy security of tenure. The principle of the separation of powers, particularly between the Government and the Judiciary, also serves to ensure the maintenance of that independence, a matter that provoked the concern of this newspaper recently.

If the country's Industrial Court enjoys the same status as the High Court, then it is our view that the quality of its independence should be nothing less; indeed it should be assured by similar mechanisms, principles and conditions that apply to the Judiciary. As it is, however, Industrial Court judges are appointed by the Cabinet and formally initiated into office by the President. This practice, it occurs to us, is far from satisfactory, particularly since judges of the IC are frequently called upon to adjudicate over industrial disputes involving the Government as employer. Can parties involved in disputes against any arm or agency of the government feel completely confident of obtaining justice before IC judges appointed by the government? We feel not. In any case, we must insist on the trusted principle that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.

From our point of view, the unfettered authority that Cabinet enjoys to appoint judges of the Industrial Court is unfortunate and unacceptable for another critical reason; it provides an avenue for the governing party not only to victimise officers seen as politically objectionable but also to engage in the unsavoury practice of nepotism and favouritism, awarding judgeships to its members, friends and supporters. This, essentially, is the substance of the judicial review application of Mr Sam Maharaj who is contending that the decision of Cabinet not to re-appoint him to the Industrial Court for another three year term was unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no effect. Mr Maharaj, former Secretary General of the All Trinidad Sugar and General Workers Trade Union - which was once led by UNC leader Basdeo Panday - was appointed by the UNC Cabinet in November 2000 after responding to an advertisement for applicants appearing in the daily newspapers several months before. Mr Maharaj also bases his judicial review case on the fact that during his three years on the Court he sat on panels which determined more than 100 trade disputes, delivering 13 of these judgments himself and, towards the end of his term, based on his request, the President of the Court Addison Khan had recommended to Cabinet that he be reappointed for a further period of five years.

It seems, however, that Cabinet has rejected this recommendation as Mr Maharaj's tenure comes to an end on February 17, after he was given a three month extension to complete outstanding matters. In his action, Mr Maharaj says he is not aware of any instance in which the IC President's recommendation was not accepted. Meanwhile, he points out a number of persons were appointed to the Court without newspaper advertisements announcing vacancies, one of them was Mr Augustus Ramrekersingh, a former PNM Cabinet Minister. Three others, Deborah Thomas-Felix, Victoria Harragin and Joy Donaldson-Honeywell, have no experience in the field of labour and labour disputes. The obvious politics involved in the appointment of IC judges is repugnant and makes it imperative for these officers to have security of tenure, which is a recommendation of the McKay Commission already accepted by Cabinet.