Global Judicial Integrity Network Updates Special Edition 'Views' Review | Page 30

VIEWS
may arise, for example, if attempts are made
to alter the demographic composition of the
judiciary. This may require the application of
criteria that seem to be at odds with traditional
conceptions of selection criteria. The criteria
applied may also be a cause for contestation
when political factors impact the appointment
process. During our prior research, several
concerns were articulated about the vagueness
of the criteria applied in many jurisdictions.
In general, a lack of clear, transparent criteria
increases the danger of appointments being
made for inappropriate reasons.
The Lilongwe Principles and Guidelines
consider several facets of this issue and
adherence to these provisions will help to
ensure that these standards are met. Judicial
appointees should exceed the minimum
standards of competency, diligence and ethics
(principle iv), and appointments should be made
according to merit (principle v). The minimum
criteria that should be met for appointment as
a judicial officer include holding a recognized
law degree, having an appropriate level of
post-qualification experience, possessing good
written and communication skills, having the
ability to diligently render a reasoned decision
and severing any political affiliations after
appointment (guidelines to principle vii). In
addition to these characteristics, the Lilongwe
Principles and Guidelines allow for appropriate
grounds of diversity to be actively prioritized to
ensure that the judiciary is reflective of society
in all respects (guidelines to principle viii).
Principle xii and its guidelines identify the
interviewing of candidates as the best practice
for the evaluation stage to ensure the fairness
of the process. Although transparency is
woven throughout the Lilongwe Principles and
Guidelines, they do not take a firm position on
whether or not interviews should take place in
public, in order to accommodate divergent views
from among the SACJF’s member countries.
promotes a high degree of transparency, there
are concerns that the nature of the judicial
office is not suitable for public interviews, and
that the prospect of being interviewed in public
could deter possible candidates. In a potential
compromise, the guidelines to principle xii
suggest that the interviewing authority should
provide candidates the option to answer
personal questions in private or public, in cases
where interviews would otherwise be public.
The regional significance of the document,
as set out at the beginning of this article,
makes it all the more important that its
provisions are implemented and applied in
the ongoing development and practice of
judicial appointment processes around Africa.
The research undertaken in support of the
development of the Lilongwe Principles and
Guidelines revealed a keen desire among a
wide range of stakeholders for improvements
and reform in the selection and appointment
process in a wide range of jurisdictions. It
is to be hoped that the Lilongwe Principles
and Guidelines will play a key role in these
developments, and thereby contribute to
strengthening the independence and integrity
of judiciaries in Africa.
Principle I, Lilongwe Principles and Guidelines on the
Selection
and Appointment of Judicial Officers
Whilst holding interviews in public clearly
30
1