Editorial: Order in the courtroom

The Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct oblige judges and magistrates to ensure their conduct is “above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer”.

Six core values are listed: independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality and competence/diligence. It raises a point, which, some might argue, states the obvious: “The primary responsibility for the promotion and maintenance of high standards of judicial conduct lies with the judiciary.”

The problem is that when one takes things for granted, standards risk being eroded, and questionable practices introduced.

This point about taking things for granted was raised by former chief justice Vincent De Gaetano in the introduction to a book titled Judicial Independence: Cornerstone of Democracy, published earlier this year.

He recalled when, in the summer of 2002, the then-sitting chief justice and a judge were arrested and arraigned for receiving bribes.

“It was an earth-shattering event for the whole country but also a wake-up call for the other members of the judiciary: what we had always taken for granted – the probity of judges and magistrates – was no longer to be taken for granted,” the former European Court of Human Rights judge observed.

The court and the judiciary being the ultimate bulwark of citizens in a democracy, society does not only have the right but, indeed, the duty to shout out “hands off” when judges and magistrates are attacked, especially for political ends. We use the term attack intentionally to differentiate from constructive criticism.

The keyword in the eminent jurist’s warning is ‘probity’; ‘propriety’ in the Bangalore document.

Judges and magistrates being human, they are also prone to err, both in their private life and in the courtroom.

The system in place to deal with instances of violation of the code of ethics by the judiciary lists three levels of breach: not of a serious nature, of a serious nature and of a very serious nature.

According to the constitution, disciplinary proceedings against a judge or magistrate are initiated by the chief justice or the minister for justice. Pre-2016, every citizen had the right to make such a request but that was amended, probably due to too many vexatious complaints being filed.

One can understand why requests for disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary are treated confidentially by the Commission for the Administration of Justice. However, a balance needs to be struck between judicial independence and avoiding casting a dark shadow unnecessarily on a judge or magistrate on the one hand and accountability and transparency within such a crucial institution on the other.

The courts are essential in upholding the rule of law, protecting citizens’ rights and ensuring justice prevails. Therefore, members of the judiciary are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards. Furthermore, action needs to be taken – and seen to be taken – in blatant cases of misconduct, especially when these become public.

A case in point surfaced recently when a judge gave a dressing down to a magistrate – whom he named – for “irresponsible behaviour”.

For law-abiding citizens to maintain their required trust in the judiciary, when such instances emerge, society ought to at least have its mind at rest that the necessary action is being taken.

This especially when the chief justice himself has just declared publicly there is need for more discipline among the judiciary.

The justice minister is expected to present a bill to cabinet strengthening disciplinary procedures involving the judiciary. It is, however, important that the independence of judges and magistrates is in no way compromised.