Twenty odd years today

I read with interest the judicial protest filed by Magistrate Denis Montebello against the government. The said magistrate attained the age of 60 on November 28 when, by law, he had to relinquish his post. He complains of blatant discrimination in this regard and I don't blame him. The irony of it all is that at the same instance that he is being forced to retire, the government is proposing to amend the Constitution in order to raise the retirement age of magistrates to 65.

It seems that Dr Montebello will be missing the boat by just a few days. I don't blame him for considering such amendments as being tailor-made to exclude him. To my mind this is an injustice and the magistrate deserved far better treatment.

It appears that Magistrate Montebello has been in office for no fewer than 28 years. Over the past 17 years he was the most senior member on the bench. Furthermore, over the years he managed to earn the respect of all the legal class, but seems to have fallen foul of the present administration. He undoubtedly feels that this attitude in his regard by the present government was a final act of vindictiveness.

It also transpires that since 1979, Dr Montebello will prove to be the only member of the judiciary to retire from the bench as a magistrate having failed, unlike his peers, to be appointed to higher office.

To my mind the said magistrate was undeserving of such treatment as he has always executed his duties in an exemplary fashion.

It is not the first time that I have had the opportunity to accuse this administration of double standards, insensitivity and nepotism. I have gone on record stating that one of the reasons for inefficiency and lack of enthusiasm in the workings of the court is the way certain members of the judiciary are treated. It is undoubtedly frustrating for people holding office to be bypassed in promotions and treated in a discriminatory fashion. Such an attitude encourages dissidence and lack of drive.

I also had ample opportunity to state that to my mind it has become critically important to re-address the issue of the pension judges are entitled to at present. It has now become customary for judges to seek other appointments once they have attained pensionable age. The reason for this is that after getting used to a certain lifestyle such retired members of the judiciary find it hard not only to make ends meet but, worse, to adapt to an inactive lifestyle.

This state of affairs has rightly been viewed as impinging on the very independence of this pillar of state. The reason for this is that during their last years in office members of the judiciary could appear to be too appeasing to the executive hoping, in return, to be appointed to other offices once they retire. This is worrying indeed.

There are only two ways of addressing this issue.

We could either follow the European norm and extend the retirement age of our judges on a voluntary bases or else re-address the way their pensions are computed, the first being the best option. In fact, this is what the government is proposing with regard to the bench of magistrates with the exception, of course, of Magistrate Montebello. In his case it would make a lot of sense if the government would revise its position and include him with the rest.

I'm writing this article on November 28, which happens to be the 20th anniversary of my graduation as a lawyer. I must say that these have been 20 colourful and fulfilling years, not however without the usual ups and downs experienced in every profession.

Throughout these years, however, I have sadly witnessed a decrease in the prestige of our judicial system. Back then I remember the courts bubbling with activity. Today it seems the government has embarked on a process of dismantling the overall jurisdiction of our courts, transferring chunks of their work to ad hoc tribunals. Walking along the court corridors, we lawyers at times lament the good old days when advocacy simply meant taking up briefs before the courts. Today, unfortunately, our judicial system has evolved in a different fashion whereby more and more decisions are left to entities outside the judicial system of state.

One minister after the other has vowed to improve the standard of the administration of justice and strengthen our judicial system. Though certain aspects of judicial procedure have been improved, the overall impression I get after looking back over all these years is that, in truth, the administration of justice has regressed.

I conclude by taking the liberty to wish a happy anniversary to my colleagues of the class of 1986.

Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.