|
Guyana Judiciary
Vestiges of a Dutch legal system remain, particularly in the
area of land tenure. However, the common law of Britain is the
basis for the legal system of Guyana. The judiciary consists of a
magistrate's court for each of the ten regions and a Supreme Court
consisting of a High Court and a Court of Appeal. The 1980
constitution established the judiciary as an independent branch of
the government with the right of judicial review of legislative and
executive acts.
The constitution secures the tenure of judicial officers by
prescribing their age of retirement (sixty-two or sixty-five),
guaranteeing their terms and conditions of service, and preventing
their removal from office except for reasons of inability or
misconduct established by means of an elaborate judicial procedure.
These constitutional arrangements are supplemented by statutory
provisions that establish a hierarchy of courts through which the
individual under scrutiny may secure enforcement of his civil and
political rights.
The lower courts, known as magistrates' courts, have
jurisdiction in criminal cases and civil suits involving small
claims. The High Court has general jurisdiction in both civil and
criminal matters. Criminal cases are always tried by a jury of
twelve persons. Appeals of High Court rulings go to the Court of
Appeal.
Any person in Guyana has the right to bring charges involving
a breach of criminal law. In practice, the police as the official
law enforcement body generally institute and undertake criminal
prosecutions. Traditionally, the attorney general (a cabinet-level
minister) exercises supervisory authority over all criminal
prosecutions.
The executive president appoints all judges, with the exception
of the chancellor of the High Court (the head of the judiciary),
the chief justice of the Court of Appeal, and the chief magistrate.
The Judicial Service Commission appoints these top three judges;
however, the commission itself is selected by the president.
Although selection of the members of the Judicial Service
Commission is supposed to be made with opposition input, in fact
the opposition has no say in judicial appointments. Observers have
noted that trials are generally fair, but if a guilty verdict is
reached, the executive president often drops strong hints
concerning the magnitude of the sentence he expects for crimes that
have received national publicity.
Data as of January 1992
|
