THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE SOVEREIGNTY of Parliament allows its members to bring up issues of importance and concern to the Government and the people of this country without the fear of legal backlash. This is a good system provided it is not abused. The issues brought up deserve due consideration by all.
Mrs. Dorothy Lightbourne brought up one such issue of grave concern to the citizenry and a highly political Attorney-General has chosen to quash it with a smokescreen of accusations of misconduct.
Unfortunately, we have swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker. Even those who argue in Mrs. Lightbourne's defence speak of the rights of parliament or of free speech. But what about the issue. Why shouldn't Resident Magistrates be examined and criticised. Have we not considered the seriousness of the possibility that Mrs. Lightbourne's criticism might be accurate. Even one judgment by one Resident Magistrate affected by the consideration of tenure is one bad judgment too many.
The system of appointment of RMs lends itself to the possibility. People argue that the 'position' is beyond reproach. In the world today too many people in high positions shatter our trust that was placed in them; trust awarded to the 'position' that was beyond reproach. Locally, the Minister of Finance's recent admission of abuse of office in appropriating our taxes for electioneering priorities comes to mind.
Mrs. Lightbourne's statements do deserve consideration not condemnation. If the method of RM appointments and tenure lends itself to that kind of accusation then the system needs review. Why not, Mr. Attorney-General? A review may make your responsibility easier unless the system is already acceptable to you. Does our justice again take a backseat to political motives?
I am, etc.,
WARREN BAUGH,
wbaugh@cwjamaica.com
Kingston 6.
