By KEILE CAMPBELL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kcampbell@tribunemedia.net

FORMER House Speaker Halson Moultrie has accused the government of interfering in the judicial system by installing politically affiliated individuals into key judicial positions, a practice he warned threatens the independence of the judiciary and erodes public trust in the rule of law.

Mr Moultrie spoke to The Tribune yesterday following the release of his recent public statement titled The Hungry Judge.

He said the statement was prompted by a judicial matter in which a senior officer in the Attorney General’s office allegedly tried to direct a Supreme Court registrar to override a judge’s order.

“That is completely wrong,” Mr Moultrie said. “That is gross interference and overreaching into the judiciary.”

He said the alleged attempt was reported to him by the very judge whose decision the senior officer tried to undermine.

Mr Moultrie claimed the incident represents a wider trend of political encroachment on judicial independence, driven by the appointment of former Cabinet ministers and political allies to the bench.

“What has been happening over the years is the bench—if you look at the judiciary—there has been an erosion of the independence of the judiciary by appointment of persons who are politically exposed,” Mr Moultrie said. “You have former ministers of government now claiming on the bench. That is most unusual in the Western model of governance and most unusual when it comes to the separation of powers.”

Mr Moultrie, who served as Speaker from 2017 to 2021, said the judiciary must remain above political influence in order to uphold the Constitution and the doctrine of the separation of powers. He argued that judges with former political ties cannot avoid the appearance of bias.

He further warned that a politicised judiciary could lead to the suppression of dissent, selective justice and the silencing of criticism through “judge shopping” and the strategic assignment of cases to preferred judges.

“When the grouping of persons who put the judges in place have issues before the court, they begin to judge shop,” Mr Moultrie said. “They begin to make sure that matters go before judges who will favour their position.”

He underlined that technological advancements, such as the digital uploading of rulings and remote hearings, have opened up the judiciary to more public scrutiny, which he views as a necessary response to increased political interference.

“If a judge is prepared to override the Office of the Court, then that judge can no longer shelter behind the cloak of not being scrutinised,” Mr Moultrie said. “Any decision a judge makes should be open to public scrutiny, public criticism, including questioning by the media, by academics and by the general public.”

Mr Moultrie recommended several reforms to address these concerns. He called for a formal mentorship programme for newly appointed judges, greater transparency in the appointment process, and renewed emphasis on judicial integrity and independence.

He also said appointments should not be made solely on academic qualifications or political loyalty, but should consider courtroom experience and ethical fitness.

“What happens if you appoint a person who is carrying out the agenda of the Executive as opposed to making sure we get justice?” Mr Moultrie said. “They will interfere in the process, ask leading questions, and their decisions will exclude relevant legal points, rendering bogus decisions and forcing you to the appellate process.”

He warned that in such a system, poorer litigants may be denied justice due to the cost of lengthy appeals.

Mr Moultrie called for a formal mentorship programme for judges, increased transparency in judicial appointments, and stronger emphasis on judicial independence and integrity.