Reverend Dr. Gordon A.R. Edwards, Sr. Challenges Bar Association’s Stance on Judicial Criticism
Reverend Dr. Gordon A.R. Edwards, Sr. has voiced his objection to the Bar Association’s recent position regarding the criticism of the judiciary. Rev. Dr. Edwards asserts that criticism of the judiciary’s actions and decisions should not be classified as an attack but rather as an essential component of democratic accountability.
The Bar Association recently expressed concern that certain criticisms directed at the judiciary amounted to unwarranted attacks, undermining the independence and integrity of the legal system. However, Rev. Dr. Edwards vehemently disagrees with this characterization, arguing that the judiciary, like all branches of government, must remain subject to public scrutiny.
“The judiciary is but one branch of government,” Rev. Dr. Edwards stated. “All branches of government are in the same boat, meaning that their actions are never above criticism. Criticism is one of the ways the judiciary is held accountable. If not the people and the other two branches of government, who else has the right, authority, and power to hold the judiciary accountable?”
Rev. Dr. Edwards questioned the implications of shielding the judiciary from critique, suggesting that such a stance could lead to a dangerous perception of the judiciary as infallible or beyond reproach. “If you hold that the judiciary should never be questioned or criticized (closely examined), then what are you saying about the judiciary? That it is above critique? How do you fix something if you do not closely examine it and point out its failures?”
He also raised concerns about the interpretation and application of laws, challenging the notion that the judiciary is immune to error. “The Bar Association contends that the judiciary interprets the laws and applies them: does this mean that the judiciary is never in error in its interpretation and application of the laws? And what is your recourse if it is believed to be in error? Are you contending then that only the judiciary can ‘police’ itself?”
Rev. Dr. Edwards’ critique extends to the potential consequences of a judiciary that is insulated from criticism. He warned that if the judiciary fails to act in the public’s interest and is not open to scrutiny, it risks becoming “redundant and ineffectual,” possibly even “irrelevant.” He added, “To declare that the judiciary is shielded from criticism is to not only subordinate the people’s will to its own but more so it voids and subverts the mind, will, and purpose for which it was intended.”
He called upon the Bar Association and the judiciary to embrace criticism as a healthy part of governance, akin to how the executive and legislative branches are subject to public evaluation. “The Bar Association and the judiciary should be willing to accept criticism just as the other two branches of government receive.”
In a final provocative question, Rev. Dr. Edwards challenged the notion that public officials, including the Prime Minister, lose their right to criticize the judiciary upon assuming office. “When did the PM or any public official stop being a citizen of the country so that his/their right as a citizen to criticize the other branches of government ceases?”
Rev. Dr. Edwards concluded his statement with a powerful reminder of the role of criticism in democracy. “We criticize for the better and we keep silent at our peril.”
Rev. Dr. Edwards’ comments are likely to stir further debate on the balance between judicial independence and accountability in the country.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua! We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.Contact us at [email protected]
