Criticism of Judiciary

Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:53:10 +0000

IT is a misconception and misinterpretation of the law to impute that the independence of the Judiciary implies immunity to public scrutiny.

The judgments that courts pass are public documents which can be made subject to analysis and scrutiny where necessary.

What is not in order and contemptuous is commenting on an active court case for fear that either party to the case might be deprived of justice as public opinion has the potential to influence the outcome of the court process.

In this vein, it is a serious error to think that scrutinising the judicial officers is intimidating the Judiciary. These officers are amenable to such public criticism.

What must be understood is that the judges who are in the driving seat of the Judiciary are public officers like any other such officials. If they fall short of people’s expectation, they, like any other public officers, put themselves in the firing range.

The Zambian governance system hinges on the doctrine of separation of powers where each branch of Government has a distinct role to play and no one branch should interfere in the other’s function.

For avoidance of doubt, Parliament makes the law, the executive implements the law while the Judiciary interprets the law.

And each of these arms of Government culminates into public offices whose work and conduct spontaneously attract public scrutiny.

Some of the reasons for this might be obviously known owing to the fact that the public officers charged to carry out the responsibility must offer a service to the public in tandem with the widely accepted standards.

Whenever any of these arms of Government veers off the widely accepted distinctive roles, they fall prey to public criticism.

The mere fact that each arm of Government plays a distinguished role does not insulate any of them from vitriol, including the Judiciary, however sensitive it is.

The manner in which the court justices handle their work must be beyond reproach and unquestionable by the right thinking members of the public.

For instance, the drama that characterised the presidential election petition at the Constitutional Court clearly put the judges on a pedestal. They opened themselves up to a barrage of criticism because the inconsistency on the interpretation of the 14-day period displayed incompetence on their part.

If judges fail to guide the nation on the concise interpretation of the law, should they be immune to public criticism in the name of the independence of the judiciary?

We do not think so. As alluded to, the Judiciary is a public arm of Government and the officers thereof are not immune to scrutiny.

As such, we are taken aback at the double standards some opposition political parties and civil society organisations have continued to exhibit.

Why should it always be an issue whenever the governing party expresses displeasure at the manner the Judiciary has superintended over some cases?

The members of the ruling PF are citizens of this country who reserve the right to express themselves whenever things are not done the right way.

We agree with President Edgar Lungu when he says that the Judiciary and the Legislature are equally amenable to criticism like the Executive arm of Government. No arm of Government is superior to the other.