Last Updated
Thursday 17 April 2014, 17:05 pm.
Judiciary must put its house in order

We have a somewhat flawed but still beautiful Constitution. Some critics of our Constitution have said it needs a serious overhaul. However, at the most basic level, our Constitution makes sense.
By Mmegi Editor, Fri 18 Oct 2013, 18:37 pm (GMT +2)
Mmegi Online :: Judiciary must put its house in order








It separates the three arms of government and provides, albeit, in some cases to a limited degree, for a separation of powers. If there is any arm of government the Constitution gives the widest independence, it would be the judiciary. The legislature and executive have often found themselves entangled in turf wars. However the judiciary to a large extent has been saved the endless tussles.

  This has been largely a positive thing. The judges have been able to deliver without any publicly known influence from other arms of government. The appointment of judges remain the contentious issue with some arguing for a much more open process, given the public access to the processes involved in appointing some of the most powerful people in the country. The process of appointing judges is shrouded in secrecy for reasons that are not difficult to guess. This remains a blight on our judicial system. But the problems with our judiciary do not end there.

Chief Justice Maruping Dibotelo's sudden outburst over the alleged misconduct of litigants and judges has given the nation reasons to debate the state of the judiciary. It is said that justice must not just be done but must be seen to be done. When Ian Kirby was elevated to the highest level of our judiciary, we expressed our concern that perhaps it may not have been the best way to give the judiciary some respect from the public. This is because of Kirby's connections to the President. This was a clear example of the President abusing the judiciary. Our judiciary has often clothe itself in a cover of secrecy on some of the most fundamental issues raised regarding it.

What happened to robust debate of judgements as in other countries? When the court declared, we believe erroneously, that the President is immune from any prosecution, where was the debate from legal experts? We blame the judges and lawyers and everyone else with an interest in judicial matters for this absence of debate and engagement. We hear judges have downed tools as a result of their displeasure with Dibotelo's outburst. The reality is that lawyers and judges, in a kind of collective plot against the public, have long cordoned off our judiciary.

Dibotelo's method is ultimately flawed in that he does not use the right forum to express his views. Neither does he seek an audience with his colleagues. He merely invites interest from the public on a matter that he could have easily dealt with  if indeed there is a matter to be dealt with. But it presents an opportunity for the nation to debate the state of our judiciary and that may just be what we need at this point.

                                                                    Today's thought

"Judges rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times."

 

                                                            - Warren E. Burger 

                                                  (Chief Justice, US Supreme Court)



Editorial
16 April 2014
15 April 2014
11 April 2014
10 April 2014
09 April 2014
08 April 2014
04 April 2014
03 April 2014
02 April 2014
01 April 2014
28 March 2014
27 March 2014
26 March 2014
25 March 2014
21 March 2014
20 March 2014
19 March 2014
18 March 2014
14 March 2014
13 March 2014
12 March 2014
11 March 2014
07 March 2014
06 March 2014
05 March 2014
01 March 2014
27 February 2014
26 February 2014
26 February 2014
21 February 2014
20 February 2014
19 February 2014
18 February 2014
14 February 2014
12 February 2014
12 February 2014
07 February 2014
06 February 2014
05 February 2014
31 January 2014