Editorial | Transparent judicial appointments

The current controversy in Nigeria over why more than half of the 62 applicants for seats on the federal bench failed to advance, is a reminder of long-standing calls for reforms to the system for appointing judges in Jamaica, which largely lacks transparency.

In that regard, the island’s chief justice, Bryan Sykes, in his role as chairman of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), should disclose whether the commission’s planned retreat to review the nearly two decades-old Chevannes Report on the state of the judicial system was held in 2025, and what position, if any, it arrived at on judicial appointments.

The Justice System Reform Task Force, chaired by the late University of the West Indies sociologist Barry Chavannes, submitted its report in 2007. While several of its long list of recommendations have been acted on, its proposals for changes to the process by which judges are appointed remained untouched.

Last April, addressing the oath-taking ceremony of two judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Sykes disclosed that the Judicial Services Commission would hold its first ever retreat, with the Chevannes Report, especially what it had to say on the appointment of judges, as a critical agenda issue.

“Despite the fact that … (the Chevannes Report) may be considered old, it is still relevant, and we take the observations made there very seriously,” the chief justice said. He said a committee headed by former Court of Appeal judge Hillary Phillips had, in 2020, on the basis of the task force’s findings and other considerations, developed proposals to be discussed at the retreat.

However, Chief Justice Sykes didn’t give a specific date for the retreat, and in the months since the remarks, there have been no follow-up public statement on the matter. Neither has a report been published on the outcome of the session.

INSUFFICIENTLY TRANSPARENT

In its report, the Chevannes task force described Jamaica’s system for appointing judges at all levels of the judiciary as “inadequate and insufficiently transparent”.

“Some have raised concerns that the appointment process is politicised although the general view is that the appointments are of very high calibre,” the report said. “Another concern is that there is a tendency to focus on recruitment from the public Bar although this is more of an issue for appointments as resident magistrates (now parish court judges) and only indirectly to the Supreme Court.”

Said the report: “The main problem is that the consultation and review process is very informal and is in need of more openness.”

The latter issue is, in part, what Nigeria’s Federal Judicial Services Commission (FJSC) attempted to address in its current recruitment exercise, causing widespread discussion in the country.

In Nigeria, applicants for federal judgeships, under an initiative apparently promoted by Chief Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, not only have to do written tests but undergo integrity screenings, which include invitations to the public to provide feedback on the prospective appointees.

Of the 62 lawyers whose names were published in September, having met the initial requirements for the recruitment, only 28 emerged from the next phase of the exercise. Thirty-four, or 55 per cent, had dropped out, leading to media reports that they had failed integrity checks, including a chief police superintendent, on the basis of a feedback complaint that she had demanded bribes.

However, the National Judicial Council (NJC), the body that makes the final recommendations for the appointment of judges after the initial recruitment process by state and federal judicial services commissions, said the big dropout rate was not because of corruption.

“A few candidates were discontinued at the FJSC stage due to adverse findings arising from petitions submitted to the commission,” the judicial council said. “Others did not progress further because they failed to attain the required qualifying score to move to the interview stage before the NJC.”

FUNDAMENTAL TAKEAWAY

The more fundamental takeaway, however, is that Nigeria, a country with a reputation for wide-scale corruption, has adopted a process that brings greater transparency to, and invites deeper scrutiny of, potential judicial appointees.

While perception of corruption in Jamaica is deep, there is a sense that the judiciary has avoided the worst of the taint and that judges mostly serve with integrity.

But there has been unease in the past over the appointment of politicians to the bench, efforts to parachute politically favoured people into judicial appointments, as well as attempts by the political executive to exert ascendancy over the judiciary such as Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ 2018 bid to place Chief Justice Sykes on probation on his appointment to the post. That move led to an unprecedented strike by judges.

In these contexts, the basis of entry to the judiciary, especially the higher courts, remains a live issue.

The Chevannes committee had proposed that

• judicial vacancies be advertised broadly.

• appointments should only be made from candidates who formally apply or are nominated or through a formalised search committee process.

• clear, merit-based criteria should be developed and published for the selection of judges.

• the appointment process should be codified and publicised.

• independent judicial appointments committees, with constitutional authority be established to manage the recruitment process and make appointments to the judiciary.

These are all sensible ideas that can be built upon.