Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©New Straits Times (Used by permission)

IN the words of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip, so "unprecedented" was the departure from the standards of proper behaviour that confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary has been badly shaken. For this reason, the decision taken last month to form a Judicial Appointments Commission constitutes a vital step towards restoring public trust.

The hope is that the change in the mode of selection and promotion will put on the bench judges with the professional ability, intellectual capacity and moral integrity of the highest calibre. However, as vital as it is to provide safeguards against the kinds of "interference and manipulation" which the royal commission had detected, it is also important to provide protection against bad judges.

Judges, after all, are human, and even the good ones can go bad. Certainly, judges should be free from excessive executive and legislative control, and should not be removed on the whims of the government of the day. However, whatever their lofty constitutional status and their de facto lifetime appointments, judges are not untouchable. No one is above the law, not even a judge.

While the independence of the judiciary is critical, independence without accountability is unacceptable. No institution should be allowed to operate without being answerable to society. Those who demean the dignity of the bench and behave in a manner which undermines the administration of justice and subverts the rule of law should be called on the carpet.

It is true that there is a substantive code of ethics to guide judges on how to conduct themselves in a proper fashion. It is also true that there is an established statutory procedure to deal with violations of the code. However, it is difficult to agree with the royal commission that there is "sufficient mechanism in place" and what "may be lacking" is "a matter of enforcement".

On the contrary, the code does not appear to have served as an adequate deterrent and the disciplinary mechanism has not been exercised with enough regularity and rigour to make a difference. There seems sufficient reason to explore an alternative arrangement to handle judicial misconduct. Given the seeming inadequacies, there is a need for a more effective and expeditious way to reprimand, censure, suspend and remove judges.

This is why it may have been hasty for the royal commission to see no "need" for a judicial complaints tribunal, when there is reason to think that such a body can provide a more impartial means of making the judiciary more accountable.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed