So an Appeal Court is no longer a priority. How interesting. And yet, Attorney General ( AG) Yatin Varma assured us in January that the bill would be introduced in Parliament “ in March”.

So what happened between January and March to push the setting up a Court of Appeal further down the list of government priorities? This question won’t be answered, fear not. On the 9 th of January, “ l’express” published an article that conveyed the apprehension of many lawyers regarding this particular draft bill. They say they had been led to believe that the setting up of a new court of appeal would also bring about a restriction in the access of the public to the Privy Council.

The suspicion came from unconfirmed sources and was fed by the AG’s unwillingness to make public the contents of the finalized version of the bill. They say – and the AG confi rmed – that the draft that was circulated was amended beyond recognition.

The AG’s office was quick to send a rejoinder to the January article to “ reassure” the public and to say that it had never been the government’s intention to restrict the access to the Privy Council.

The proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating. Except now there’ll be no eating and thus no proof in other words, we won’t know if the AG’s rejoinder was true or not. And the postponement of the draft bill that was supposed to make way for a new court, lends more credence to the lawyers’ concerns that the opacity surrounding the whole project was in fact paving the way for something not very palatable. For otherwise, there would be no need for opacity, would there? That’s why the decision not to go ahead with the setting up of a court of appeal is a good thing. Except that we do badly need a separate court of appeal. The foremost reason the Mackay report gives for creating a separate court is that it will rid the courts of the potential confl ict of having judges uphold or quash a colleague’s judgment. And ensure that justice is done without fear or favour. Or solidarity.

But we are to have none of this because we cannot, for the life of us, implement a measure without it getting embroiled in politics. And once the matter gets too hot to handle, we choose instead to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Typical!