THE Law Association (LATT) intends to seek guidance from regional senior counsel on allegations and findings against Chief Justice Ivor Archie and High Court judge Marcia Ayers-Caesar.
This follows concerns raised in the Court of Appeal and Privy Council rulings on the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) vs Marcia Ayers-Caesar case. Archie is chairman of the JLSC.
In a statement on April 4, the association said its mandate includes taking steps in response to allegations of misconduct made against judicial officers and members of the profession.
The association admitted the courts’ views and that of the media, the public and the profession were subject to “anxious consideration” by its council and emphasised, “that it does not have or claim the luxury of responding to events which impact public confidence in the judiciary without due calm and thoughtful deliberation.”
It also distanced itself from the destruction of a portrait of CJ Archie by outspoken Israel Khan, SC, head of the Criminal Bar Association on April 3.
>
“LATT recognises and holds dear the right of its members and members of the public to level criticism against members of the judiciary, including calling for their resignation.
“However, we would emphasise the need in every such case for the expression of even strident views with dignity and respect.
“While we respect our member’s absolute right to call for the resignation of the Chief Justice, we consider his particular mode of expression of that opinion as unnecessarily provocative and lacking in the requisite level of decorum associated with the profession.”
The association assured it was committed to strengthening the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession.
“It will continue to monitor these developments and engage relevant stakeholders to ensure that all matters are addressed in a manner consistent with due process, legal ethics, and the principles of fundamental justice.”
In their findings, the Privy Council agreed with the Appeal Court that Ayers-Caesar was improperly forced to resign by the commission in 2019, but it also ruled that she could have been properly subjected to a section 137 probe for her actions leading up to her forced removal by the JLSC.
The Privy Council acknowledged that her failure to fully disclose the extent of her backlog was “capable of falling within the scope of section 137,” but maintained any disciplinary proceedings against her should have followed the correct constitutional process.
“Pressuring a judge to resign by holding out the threat of disciplinary proceedings, as the commission did in the present case, circumvents the constitutional safeguards laid down in section 137 and undermines their purpose.”
