Global Judicial Integrity Network Updates Special Edition 'Views' Review | Page 28

VIEWS
the judge is acting with impunity towards the
law? Generally, the decisions of a judge should
be left for judicial review, not for critique by a
conduct commission. However, incidents where
people are jailed without due process, judges
inventing improper remedies for cases or a
breakdown in the rule of law can rise to the
level of judicial misconduct. Regulating that
type of behaviour without violating separation
of powers or decision-making independence
becomes a walk on the edge of knife.
Theodore Roosevelt: “No man is above the
law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any
man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.
Obedience to the law is demanded as a right, not
asked as a favour.” The judges who administer
justice in our countries must be seen as ethical
and subject to meaningful correction when it is
necessary. Nothing less than the rule of law is
at stake.
Implementing a meaningful way for the public
to be protected from judicial misconduct is
vital — there has to be review. Furthermore,
it must be done with minimal risk of unlawful
intervention by forces trying to prevent
unpopular, but correct, rulings on the law. Of
course, a proper system to protect the judges’
rights to contest ethical charges must be in
place. If there is a finding that a judge violated
judicial ethics standards, then determining
a sanction or remedy would be the next step.
A well-equipped conduct commission must
have appropriate remedies available. Public
discipline serves the dual purpose of correcting
the judge in question, as well as educating
others in the judiciary. Conduct commissions
typically have the authority to publish warnings
or reprimands for the unethical behaviour.
Remedial measures may be ordered requiring,
by way of example, mentoring, monitoring or
additional education. The rare and serious
sanctions of suspension or removal from
office are reserved for only the most egregious
instances of misconduct.
It behoves the judiciary to support measures
that hold it accountable. While the majority
of judges serve with honour, ethical missteps
should be corrected, and major breaches of trust
should be acknowledged. The judiciary should
be willing to help develop ethical standards
and be an active part of any enforcement
mechanism.
To quote former United States President
28
Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct, https://www.
unodc.org/ji/en/resdb/data/usa/arkansas_code_
of_judicial_conduct.html
1