The Editor, Sir:

Congratulations on yesterday's editorial with whose contents I find myself in total agreement.

It is a pity that a variety of high-brow legal associations (none of whom I am a member) persist in their single-minded failure to grasp the meaning of judicial independence and, incidentally, to continue in their opposition to the Caribbean Court on this irrelevant basis.

For their benefit:

Judicial independence is not based on any real or perceived immunity to criticism.

Judicial independence is not based on any real or perceived absence of attempted political interference or intimidation.

People are people especially politicians and they will try anything. The foundation of judicial independence is security of tenure which is pro-tected by an equally indepen-dent Judicial Services Commission. Anyone, including politicians, can criticise, abuse, threaten or try to intimidate, but none can affect the judge's tenure and that is the guarantee of judicial independence.

The learned minister was simply exercising his right to criticise, guaranteed to him as to any other citizen under our constitution and, in doing so publicly, was only following the learned judge's example of electing to use her position on the bench to publicise her complaints about the ministry.

And a brief lesson for Peter Clarke who wrote yesterday's Letter of The Day. Government is constitutionally in place to serve the people, not the other way around. There are three branches of Government under our constitution, namely: the executive (of which Minister Nicholson is a part); the legislature (in which he also serves as a continuing reminder of the weaknesses of our system of governance) and the judiciary (of which the learned judge is a member). All, including the learned judge, are indeed servants of the people. However, many often forget.

I am, etc.,

GORDON ROBINSON

robinson@cwjamaica.com

69 Lady Musgrave Road

Kingston 10

Via Go-Jamaica