Our View: judicial reform is a major issue needing exhaustive discussion

Justice Minister Emily Yiolitis submitted the bills to overhaul the dysfunctional justice system to the House legal affairs committee in the hope that these would be voted through before the end of this month, when the legislature will dissolve for elections. If this does not happen it is very unlikely the changes would be in place by September 1, which seems to be the deadline set by the minister.

It seems rather optimistic to consider the examination and discussion of the bills by the committee doable in three weeks, given the scope of the reform and the pace at which the legislature operates. In fairness, this is a major reform project that needs to be exhaustively discussed. Then again, deputies from the legal affairs committee participated in the working group, which had an input in drawing up the bills, so they should be familiar with them.

The main obstacle to the approval of the bills may be the supreme court which sent a memo to the legal affairs committee noting its objection to the reformulation of the supreme constitutional court, which was phased out in 1964. Supreme court judges voted, by eight to five, in favour of maintaining the supreme court’s unitary status, “because it undoubtedly serves the correct and smooth administering of justice.”

The memo from the judges also gave some rather unconvincing reasons against breaking up the supreme court into two bodies. The existence of two supreme court bodies could give rise to interminable procedures regarding their legality, and this would jeopardise the smooth administering of justice; supreme constitutional court was only necessary for a state’s democratisation process, for which there was no need in Cyprus; there had been no in-depth study providing incontrovertible evidence that the existence of a unitary supreme court was the cause of the insurmountable problems in the administering of justice.

Funnily enough, the judges also failed to offer any evidence to substantiate their assertion that the unitary status of the supreme court “serves the correct and smooth administering of justice.” Does waiting five to seven years for the supreme court to issue a decision qualify as smooth administering of justice? If the judges came up with their own proposals for improving the efficiency and operation of a unitary supreme court that could have been discussed but they just wanted to keep things as they are, suggesting that they do not even recognise there is a problem.

Perhaps they consider the delays a small price to pay for preserving their power, which would undoubtedly be diluted if the supreme court is split into two bodies. Opposition parties like Akel and Diko appear to have sided with the judges, criticising the government for failing to bridge its differences with the supreme court, and could use this as an excuse to reject the reform bills.