Dear Editor,
I have read the responses to my call for Justice Arif Bulkan to recuse himself from matters involving the PPP/C Government due to his family being heavily intertwined with Opposition politics.
I seek to address several points made in an online publication titled “A Giant in the Dock of Cowardice.”
First, let me make it abundantly clear that Professor Arif Bulkan’s academic achievements are not in dispute. His distinguished career in academia and his scholarship are matters of public record and deserve recognition. Indeed, the response’s detailed recitation of his accomplishments serves as a reminder of the intellectual pedigree he brings to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
However, the defence offered by the author does not engage with the principal issue raised in my original letter.
At no point did I question Professor Bulkan’s academic qualifications, intelligence, or legal knowledge. The concern raised was about public confidence in judicial impartiality, particularly given the well-known political affiliations and activism of close relatives who have been outspoken in opposition political circles.
The response dedicates considerable space to celebrating Professor Bulkan’s academic accomplishments but remarkably little to addressing whether such close familial political connections could give rise to perceptions of bias in matters involving the Government of Guyana, especially cases concerning the PPP/C administration.
This distinction is important.
The qualities that make one an accomplished academic are not necessarily the same qualities required of a judge. Academia often encourages robust advocacy, critique, and the advancement of particular schools of thought. Judicial office, on the other hand, demands a disciplined commitment to applying the law impartially, regardless of personal views, ideological preferences, or external influences.
Professor Bulkan now sits on the region’s highest court. Naturally, citizens are entitled to ask whether there exists any risk—real or perceived—that the political activism of close relatives could affect public confidence in his adjudication of politically sensitive matters. Such questions are not attacks on his integrity; they are legitimate considerations whenever judicial independence and impartiality are discussed.
The issue is not whether Professor Bulkan is capable of deciding cases according to law. As a sitting judge, he enjoys the presumption of impartiality afforded to every member of the judiciary. The issue is whether those defending him are willing to acknowledge that public confidence in the courts depends not only on actual impartiality but also on the appearance of impartiality.
A recital of academic accomplishments, however impressive, does not answer the question originally posed. The concern was never about Professor Bulkan’s scholarship. It was about whether the public can be assured that familial political activism creates no perception of bias in matters that may come before the court.
Until that issue is confronted directly, the central point of the discussion remains unanswered.
Yours faithfully,
Quincy Anderson