Afew months ago, I submitted a proposal, published in The Times, on solving some of the problems of the judiciary, particularly from the angle of continuity and pensions, which will, in turn, solve other issues of integrity, efficiencies, standards and attractiveness of the post.

I basically suggested that judges should continue receiving their full income until they are 75. They should have the option to continue to work until then, in designated posts, appointments being controlled by a judicial committee.

The posts will include, first, finishing off their own court workload within a stated period after reaching the age of 65, then acting on posts of a judicial or quasi judicial nature designated in the Constitution, other than the ordinary courts with contentious jurisdiction. This will ensure their continued guaranteed independence, give greater integrity to the post by avoiding post-retirement professional practice or employment by the government and avoid the waste of a very important resource.

These posts could include commissions like that on injustice and corruption, administrative tribunals, specialised courts such as for fiduciary arrangements, and so on.

Given the continuing controversy on justice matters, I would have expected some reaction but there was none. In the meantime, a more problematic situation is developing to compound an already grave problem of Parliament not enacting remedial laws when judgements find laws breach the Constitution.

Now we have contradictory Constitutional Court judgements on matters of wide legal impact. We have them on mandatory arbitration rules and on immovable property rights.

The matter needs urgent resolution and may I suggest someone considers my proposal and additionally consider the establishment of a Supreme Court, as exists in several other countries.

This court will be manned by judges over 65, in accordance with my earlier suggestions, possibly accompanied by some others, say, retired presidents. This single court will be the court of ultimate appeal on cases where there is need for a single authoritative conclusion on matters of general importance. This will apply to civil and commercial law matters but it will, more importantly, address the issues of constitutional relevance when laws are declared unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court will not be an automatic appeals court but there will be limitations and tests for appeals to be referred to it. Access to it will not need to be based on a personal interest but a general public interest would be enough. It would not be a strict court of law but will be able to take into account policy considerations, be they economic, social, humanitarian and so on.

The Supreme Court will also be able to deal with all prior judgements and cases that are affected by the decisions they reach, thus avoiding a proliferation of cases to deal with the newly-established state of the law.

Today, after a law is declared unconstitutional we see many cases being revisited and new cases filed just to obtain an identical judgement as one already given, simply because of the notion that a judgement is law only between the parties. This principle makes no sense when a law is declared unconstitutional. The basis of such judgement is generally not the parties but some objective circumstances that apply to society at large.

This court would be mandated the function of proposing the specific solutions when unconstitutional laws need to be amended, setting a time limit for the government to do so. The Supreme Court proposal would become law should Parliament not legislate within the time limit set.

To maintain the balance of powers between the legislative and the judiciary, Parliament would retain the power to legislate on the subject at any time. This will avoid the gap we have today that leaves everyone in limbo: a mess in the courts and the legal profession in disarray.

This is not an unknown model and can work if infused with a mandate based on wisdom, justice, social harmony and certainty. These are the goals of any legal system but, today, I am sad to say we are seeing outcomes that are not always the above. Some are the result of laws, badly conceived or badly drafted and not corrected; others the result of the way the judicial system is working on a day to day basis.

We need structures to deal with the challenges we are facing.

Dr Ganado is a lawyer.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.