Courts under scrutiny as activist presses Chief Justice for answers on delayed judgments

Anand Ramlogan, SC. -

A transparency advocate has demanded the release of detailed records on long-outstanding court judgments in a freedom of information request to Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh.

Freedom Law Chambers, acting for civic activist and former Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union branch secretary Anthony Dopson, said the request follows complaints from citizens and workers about years-long waits for judgments, postponed hearings and unresolved appeals. The request says chronic delays undermine public confidence in the justice system.

The firm, led by attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, argues that these delays erode trust in the Judiciary and violate the constitutional promise of timely justice. The request was sent on November 25 and gives the Chief Justice until December 25 to issue a decision.

The letter, signed by attorney Aasha Ramlal, said there was national concern about judicial backlogs, questioning whether judicial resources are being efficiently managed.

“Given that the Judiciary is constitutionally mandated to uphold the rule of law and ensure access to justice, prolonged delays undermine its constitutional role and impair public confidence in this critical institution. These matters are plainly of national concern.

“They affect citizens’ constitutional right of access to justice, the efficiency of a core branch of the State, and the credibility of the judicial system,” Ramlal wrote.

The FOIA request seeks a list of all matters in which High Court judges, masters, registrars and Court of Appeal judges have reserved judgments for more than six months; all matters where decisions on applications or costs have remained outstanding beyond three months; all statements of costs filed but unassessed after one year, with the assigned registrar identified; all pending appeals where written reasons remain outstanding more than six months after the notice of appeal; the number of decisions of each High Court judge that have been reversed by the Court of Appeal over the past five years.

Ramlal warned the Chief Justice that any response that avoids a clear decision—granting or denying access—would breach Section 15 of the FOIA, which requires authorities to reply within 30 days. She also reminded the Judiciary of a prior 2022 request in which Freedom Law Chambers said at least 27 matters had been omitted from an official list of delayed judgments. This, Ramlal said, raised concerns about incomplete or inaccurate record-keeping.

“This suggests either inadvertent omission or inadequate administrative tracking, both of which highlight the need for accurate, reliable data.”

She added, "We do not suggest for a minute that there was any deliberate attempt on the part of judicial officers to suppress this information to avoid the unacceptable appearance of an unduly long list of outstanding judgments that could give rise to the perception of maladministration or incompetence.

“However, it is in the interest of the integrity of the administration of justice that judicial officers and their support staff accurately record and keep track of such matters. We, therefore, trust that an accurate and reliable list will be provided, as no doubt each judicial officer would have a list of outstanding judgments which their administrative support staff regularly updates.”

The letter argues that transparency on judicial delay is necessary to examine whether the Judiciary is efficiently allocating resources and managing workloads, and to hold judicial officers accountable for the timely delivery of decisions.

Ramlal also said the request would allow litigants to understand whether prolonged delays are systemic and support legal practitioners, civil society and policymakers in crafting reform proposals.

She further noted, “It is also an important performance measurement tool which the Judicial and Legal Services Commission would no doubt find useful in evaluating the performance of judges when determining promotion to the Court of Appeal.

“Indeed, such a list should be regularly provided to your office on a quarterly basis to assist in monitoring the timeliness of judgments in the public interest. It should be noted that in many countries, such a list is published and available for public inspection.”

The letter said that Dopson intends to publish any information received so that members of the public, attorneys and litigants can identify whether cases have been omitted and press for accuracy. “This way, judges can be assisted by litigants and attorneys whose matters were inadvertently omitted to ensure that they have a complete list of outstanding judgments,” the letter said.

“The Judiciary is one of the three constitutional branches of government. Its operations must be transparent to ensure public confidence. Delayed judgments, particularly those delayed beyond the accepted six-month standard, affect the credibility of the institution.

“Disclosure will allow the public to understand the extent of systemic delays and whether corrective measures are needed. Judicial officers, while constitutionally independent, are still accountable to the public for the performance of their duties. Timely judgment delivery is a core judicial responsibility. Transparency in this regard facilitates informed discourse on judicial efficiency, resource allocation, and administrative reform,” Ramlal said.

In 2022, in a similar request, the Judiciary admitted they could not readily produce certain categories of information, including delays relating to pre-trial applications and written reasons for appellate decisions. They also stated that some divisions, such as the Family and Children Division, could not release case details for confidentiality reasons. The list provided in 2022 named several High Court and Court of Appeal judges whose judgments, written reasons or appellate decisions were overdue as of May 10, 2022.

Ramlal said that failure to respond within 30 days would prompt an immediate judicial review claim seeking a mandamus order compelling disclosure. She asked that if the Judiciary anticipates needing more time, it must provide a written undertaking not to object to any delay if the matter reaches court.

In his budget presentation in October, Finance Minister Davendranath Tancoo announced proposed reforms to make justice more efficient, transparent, and accessible, including the creation of the office of a Judiciary Chancellor, previously raised by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. Tancoo said the new Judiciary Chancellor will oversee case management to improve efficiency, allowing the Chief Justice to focus on jurisprudence with an aim to strengthen the justice system’s leadership and reduce case backlogs.

Only recently, a triple-murder convict appealed to the Chief Justice on the delay in delivering a ruling in his judicial review lawsuit filed in 2024.

Daniel Agard, who was given a 28-year sentence for murdering his great-grandmother, great-aunt and great-uncle in 2001, says he would have completed the sentence if he had been granted remission by prison officials.

He called on the Chief Justice to look into the matter. He sought intervention in an assault and battery case against the state, which, he said, is yet to be assessed by a master, although the Privy Council delivered a final decision in February. Relatives of an uncle and nephew who were also successful in overturning their murder convictions at the Court of Appeal in 2024 have also sought answers on when their retrial is likely to begin.