Political interference and Corruption in Courts
One of the fundamental rights of humankind is the expectation of reciprocity of treatment in the conduct of one’s affairs. This translates into being just and fair, and to be so treated in the courts which are charged with administering justice. In discharging this obligation, the streams of justice must be kept pure and unadulterated, not clogged or polluted
The right to be treated fairly is recognised in international human rights treaties. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that every human being is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his rights and obligations of any criminal charge against him.
The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights similarly provides, and the Human Rights Committee has unambiguously held that “the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal is an absolute right that may suffer no exception”. Other international treaties have similar provisions, e.g. the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The common thread wicker into all of these treaties and which is relevant to the topic under discussion is the impartiality of the court or tribunal. The objective of every court in the judicial system of any nation is to administer justice by protecting the rights of citizens. Justice can only be achieved by holding the scales evenly which involves being impartial. No party should come to the court with an unfair advantage over the other.
Preservation of the integrity of the judicial system is a sine qua non or outcome of its effectiveness and this can be marked by the corruption of its functionaries no matter how poorly. The whole structure becomes infected resulting in loss of confidence and trust in the persons responsible for safeguarding the rights of a state’s citizens.
Political Interference and Corruption in its ordinary meaning connotes dishonest or fraudulent conduct, typically involving bribery, and in the context of this paper attributable to persons who are in positions of authority or in a position to influence those in authority. It has also been defined as the abuse of public office for private gain. Members of any judiciary by virtue of their eminence are expected to be pillars of morality in their communities, and above reproach. They are expected to provide solutions to problems and redress for violation of rights. They are expected to be objective in assessing evidence and determining guilt or innocence.
Many times in some jurisdictions the failure of governments to ensure the independence of the judiciary by according to it adequate and reasonable financial resources leads to corruption within the court system. If judges and support staff are inadequately paid or remunerated for their services they will inevitably become vulnerable to external pressures, threats and corruption.
In 1985 the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders adopted the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary which was later unanimously endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. One of the Principles is to this effect: “It is the duty of each Member State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions”.
The whole issue of the independence of the judiciary has been debated and discussed repeatedly at different fora. One wonders whether any judiciary can ever be totally independent having regard to the fact that its whole existence requires some dependence on the legislative and executive branches of government. The judiciary cannot stand in isolation. It needs to be funded by the government, and some postulate that this compromises its independence and violates the doctrine of separation of powers. This is a notion to which I do not subscribe since of necessity every state must provide for the establishment of a court system which must be adequately staffed and funded. To request and expect adequate financing in no way compromises the independence or integrity of those who work within the judicial system. The compromise results when little or grossly inadequate financial resources are allocated to the administration of justice in a government’s budget, and the judiciary is relegated to the position of a mendicant in order to keep the court system on an even collected.
The symbiotic relationship between the executive and the judiciary depends on managing the flow of information where the success of any cooperative and constructive relationship ultimately depends upon meaningful communication. The Executive must appreciate that the Judiciary is usually in a better position to determine the most efficient and effective means of administering the courts, and must remain attentive to the Judiciary’s needs and concerns. By that same token, the Executive is in a better position than the Judiciary to decide upon fiscal priorities, and it shows the Judiciary to be sensitive to those priorities when communicating its own needs and concerns.
A balancing act of competing priorities for finance is always performed in developing countries with scarce financial resources. This results in the administration of justice being placed at the bottom of the scale when cash-strapped governments have to decide whether a school or hospital should be erected rather than a new court building or whether the emoluments or simply the paycheck of the judiciary should be increased.
The inevitable result of persistent failure to address the needs of a state’s judiciary is that the curse of corruption rears its ugly head. Judicial officers may be tempted to devise ways and means to augment their limited earnings. This also spreads to an underpaid and overworked support staff within the court system. These lowly persons are the main focus of my attention in that they can influence adversely the public’s perception of a judicial administration which strives valiantly to uphold standards of fair play and principles of impartiality.
In the judicial systems of most developing countries the support staff which comprises clerks, typists, marshals and bailiffs is drawn from the traditional public service with fixed salary scales which are invariably low and hence attract persons with minimum qualifications. In most instances the wages earned can barely meet their living expenses. They are, however, expected to conform to high moral standards of behaviour befitting an institution charged with the responsibility of preserving the law and dispensing justice. They are expected to be scrupulously honest and fair in their interactions with the public, but are exposed on a daily basis to temptations and requests from parties to litigation in the courts to alter and remove files and documents or misrepresent facts or try to influence judges with whom they work.
One may imagine the view that all support staff in the court system should be adequately trained not only in the procedures to be followed in the performance of their duties, but also in the ethics and moral norms of behaviour which they are expected to uphold. This is a laudable and commendable objective, but is it easily achieved by personnel whose earnings are minimal? The temptation to transgress may be too great to resist.
The answer to this may not be easy for poor developing countries, but efforts must be made and methods devised to increase the paychecks of the support staff in the court system. Failure to do so and do so effectively will result in an infection of the system with a virus of no mean proportion with justice being sold to the highest bidder, not to mention loss of confidence by the public in the ability of judges to affect justice fairly and without favour.
http://www.causes.com/posts/576485
Having identified the problem, one may ask quite naturally what can be done to eradicate corruption. For a judicial system to function effectively, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Public perception is very important, and those who administer the court system must be perceived to be acting firmly and resolutely in eradicating any form of corruption. Several initiatives can be taken to maintain public confidence and restore it if it is perceived to be lost. One such initiative mentioned earlier was increasing the paychecks of the support staff, and I may also add the paychecks of judicial officers where necessary.
To conclude, corruption in its ordinary meaning imply fraudulent conduct typically involving bribery or some financial advantage. However, there are other aspects of corruption which are equally reprehensible, and I refer specifically to corruption of one’s mind which in relation to the judiciary may be reflected in the delivery of perverse judgments based on a distortion of facts given at the request of a relative or an acquaintance. This strikes at the very root of one’s personal integrity, and unfortunately there are no easy solutions in this regard. Integrity is a virtue which inheres in an individual, and which cannot be taught.
The need for judicial codes of ethics cannot be over-emphasised as they may indicate what is regarded as acceptable conduct. Sadly, one cannot always assume that everyone who aspires to or holds judicial office is aware of the components of correct judicial behaviour. Codes of ethics hopefully will point would-be aspirants in the right direction.
The methods used to eradicate corruption from the judicial system will vary within jurisdictions, but the aim should always be to sensitise judicial officers and support staff to the need for upholding the integrity of their offices within the court system. It is a goal which must be pursued resolutely in the quest for good governance within the administration of justice.
One of the fundamental rights of humankind is the expectation of reciprocity of treatment in the conduct of one’s affairs. This translates into being just and fair, and to be so treated in the courts which are charged with administering justice. In discharging this obligation, the streams of justice must be kept pure and unadulterated, not clogged or polluted
The right to be treated fairly is recognised in international human rights treaties. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that every human being is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his rights and obligations of any criminal charge against him.
The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights similarly provides, and the Human Rights Committee has unambiguously held that “the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal is an absolute right that may suffer no exception”. Other international treaties have similar provisions, e.g. the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The common thread wicker into all of these treaties and which is relevant to the topic under discussion is the impartiality of the court or tribunal. The objective of every court in the judicial system of any nation is to administer justice by protecting the rights of citizens. Justice can only be achieved by holding the scales evenly which involves being impartial. No party should come to the court with an unfair advantage over the other.
Preservation of the integrity of the judicial system is a sine qua non or outcome of its effectiveness and this can be marked by the corruption of its functionaries no matter how poorly. The whole structure becomes infected resulting in loss of confidence and trust in the persons responsible for safeguarding the rights of a state’s citizens.
Political Interference and Corruption in its ordinary meaning connotes dishonest or fraudulent conduct, typically involving bribery, and in the context of this paper attributable to persons who are in positions of authority or in a position to influence those in authority. It has also been defined as the abuse of public office for private gain. Members of any judiciary by virtue of their eminence are expected to be pillars of morality in their communities, and above reproach. They are expected to provide solutions to problems and redress for violation of rights. They are expected to be objective in assessing evidence and determining guilt or innocence.
Many times in some jurisdictions the failure of governments to ensure the independence of the judiciary by according to it adequate and reasonable financial resources leads to corruption within the court system. If judges and support staff are inadequately paid or remunerated for their services they will inevitably become vulnerable to external pressures, threats and corruption.
In 1985 the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders adopted the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary which was later unanimously endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. One of the Principles is to this effect: “It is the duty of each Member State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions”.
The whole issue of the independence of the judiciary has been debated and discussed repeatedly at different fora. One wonders whether any judiciary can ever be totally independent having regard to the fact that its whole existence requires some dependence on the legislative and executive branches of government. The judiciary cannot stand in isolation. It needs to be funded by the government, and some postulate that this compromises its independence and violates the doctrine of separation of powers. This is a notion to which I do not subscribe since of necessity every state must provide for the establishment of a court system which must be adequately staffed and funded. To request and expect adequate financing in no way compromises the independence or integrity of those who work within the judicial system. The compromise results when little or grossly inadequate financial resources are allocated to the administration of justice in a government’s budget, and the judiciary is relegated to the position of a mendicant in order to keep the court system on an even collected.
The symbiotic relationship between the executive and the judiciary depends on managing the flow of information where the success of any cooperative and constructive relationship ultimately depends upon meaningful communication. The Executive must appreciate that the Judiciary is usually in a better position to determine the most efficient and effective means of administering the courts, and must remain attentive to the Judiciary’s needs and concerns. By that same token, the Executive is in a better position than the Judiciary to decide upon fiscal priorities, and it shows the Judiciary to be sensitive to those priorities when communicating its own needs and concerns.
A balancing act of competing priorities for finance is always performed in developing countries with scarce financial resources. This results in the administration of justice being placed at the bottom of the scale when cash-strapped governments have to decide whether a school or hospital should be erected rather than a new court building or whether the emoluments or simply the paycheck of the judiciary should be increased.
The inevitable result of persistent failure to address the needs of a state’s judiciary is that the curse of corruption rears its ugly head. Judicial officers may be tempted to devise ways and means to augment their limited earnings. This also spreads to an underpaid and overworked support staff within the court system. These lowly persons are the main focus of my attention in that they can influence adversely the public’s perception of a judicial administration which strives valiantly to uphold standards of fair play and principles of impartiality.
In the judicial systems of most developing countries the support staff which comprises clerks, typists, marshals and bailiffs is drawn from the traditional public service with fixed salary scales which are invariably low and hence attract persons with minimum qualifications. In most instances the wages earned can barely meet their living expenses. They are, however, expected to conform to high moral standards of behaviour befitting an institution charged with the responsibility of preserving the law and dispensing justice. They are expected to be scrupulously honest and fair in their interactions with the public, but are exposed on a daily basis to temptations and requests from parties to litigation in the courts to alter and remove files and documents or misrepresent facts or try to influence judges with whom they work.
One may imagine the view that all support staff in the court system should be adequately trained not only in the procedures to be followed in the performance of their duties, but also in the ethics and moral norms of behaviour which they are expected to uphold. This is a laudable and commendable objective, but is it easily achieved by personnel whose earnings are minimal? The temptation to transgress may be too great to resist.
The answer to this may not be easy for poor developing countries, but efforts must be made and methods devised to increase the paychecks of the support staff in the court system. Failure to do so and do so effectively will result in an infection of the system with a virus of no mean proportion with justice being sold to the highest bidder, not to mention loss of confidence by the public in the ability of judges to affect justice fairly and without favour.
http://www.causes.com/posts/576485
Having identified the problem, one may ask quite naturally what can be done to eradicate corruption. For a judicial system to function effectively, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Public perception is very important, and those who administer the court system must be perceived to be acting firmly and resolutely in eradicating any form of corruption. Several initiatives can be taken to maintain public confidence and restore it if it is perceived to be lost. One such initiative mentioned earlier was increasing the paychecks of the support staff, and I may also add the paychecks of judicial officers where necessary.
To conclude, corruption in its ordinary meaning imply fraudulent conduct typically involving bribery or some financial advantage. However, there are other aspects of corruption which are equally reprehensible, and I refer specifically to corruption of one’s mind which in relation to the judiciary may be reflected in the delivery of perverse judgments based on a distortion of facts given at the request of a relative or an acquaintance. This strikes at the very root of one’s personal integrity, and unfortunately there are no easy solutions in this regard. Integrity is a virtue which inheres in an individual, and which cannot be taught.
The need for judicial codes of ethics cannot be over-emphasised as they may indicate what is regarded as acceptable conduct. Sadly, one cannot always assume that everyone who aspires to or holds judicial office is aware of the components of correct judicial behaviour. Codes of ethics hopefully will point would-be aspirants in the right direction.
The methods used to eradicate corruption from the judicial system will vary within jurisdictions, but the aim should always be to sensitise judicial officers and support staff to the need for upholding the integrity of their offices within the court system. It is a goal which must be pursued resolutely in the quest for good governance within the administration of justice.
Support the cause. Be counted:
No comments:
Post a Comment