The Editor, Sir:

The response of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, A.J. Nicholson, to comments made by Supreme Court Judge Almarie Sinclair-Haynes on arrangements made for her accommodation whilst presiding at the Westmoreland Circuit is instructive. The minister's response admits to a problem by his ministry concerning the arrangements made for accommodation of the judge. It is clear that other court personnel were not similarly affected. However, the minister offers no explanation for this disparity in treatment, but proceeds to opine that the soon to come improvements in the administration of justice "will mean nothing unless those who are sworn to serve the people of Jamaica understand that they are servants of the people".

Even if she were "a servant of the people", and the principle of judicial independence as expressed in constitutional law would suggest she is not, Her Ladyship is entitled to such treatment as befits her high office, and this was not accorded her.

The ungraciousness of his comments aside, the minister's response is important for its failure to recognise and to give credence to the doctrine of separation of powers, hallowed in the Jamaican Constitution. In reality that doctrine demands that our judiciary receive no less assistance from the state for the performance of its functions than does the executive or our legislators. Imagine a Cabinet Minister journeying from Kingston to Westmoreland by road and arriving "in the dead of night" on government business only to be admitted to the hotel on a restricted basis until his situation was regularised.

I am sure that the judge would not require the mass of security and the entourage that is the recognised due of members of the other arms of Government, but a modicum of courtesy would suffice. I must also invite Mr. Nicholson, to look again at the oath sworn by the judiciary. Nowhere does it bind the judge to "serve the people" .

The old oath was expressed," to truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her heirs etc" . The oath in respect of the people was to the effect "and to do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of Jamaica without fear or favour". There is nothing about serving the people in the old oath . The more recent oath declares, "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Jamaica, that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of Jamaica and I will administer justice to all persons alike in accordance with the laws and usages of Jamaica, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God."

The label "servants of the people " is better suited for the executive. The minister appears to have missed the point the learned judge has made, and it is this that for justice to be dispensed befitting her fellow Jamaicans, the judge who presides over court "should have no perceived or real problem" which she thinks would detract from her ability to dispense justice. I somehow suspect her fellow Jamaicans understood that. The minister should correct the mindset he has of the judiciary , it is still one of our better preserved legacies.

I am, etc.,

PETER CLARKE

peter_clarke2000@yahoo.com