Exempt the judges

CAN our judges defy the demands of the law? We ask this rhetorical question because of the strong adverse reaction of members of the Bench to the Integrity in Public Life Act which requires them to declare their assets and those of their spouses. While we sympathise with the feeling of the judges, and we wish it were otherwise, we cannot conceive of our judicial officers refusing to comply with the commands of the law. The spectacle of our judges personally rejecting the law of the country which they themselves must administer in our courts is too disturbing for us to contemplate. We can think of no more devastating message they could send to the rest of the country. So, apart from expressing their anguish over this measure, it is difficult to see what practical protest action the judges can take as they “gear up” for battle with the State. 

Having made that basic point, however, we must come down firmly on the side of the judges who, we feel, should not have been included in the “integrity net.” On an equally basic level, it seems to us that the traditional and necessary independence that uniquely separates the judiciary from the executive would be impaired by the obligation imposed on judges to declare their assets and also those of their spouses. Other views coming out of the judiciary seem to have some validity. It is held, for example, that the demands of the legislation alter the terms of their service. In a number of cases, the wives of judges are also successful career professionals acquiring considerable assets of their own, and it was never contemplated that these assets should be declared. The point was also made that if judges are forced to declare their assets, the Judicial and Legal Service Commission may find it difficult in the future to attract suitably qualified persons to sit on the Bench.

We must wonder also about the effect which the measure would now have on the image of our judiciary which is now being lumped, in this anti-corruption mechanism, together with politcians, parliamentarians, top public servants, members of state boards and municipal bodies. We believe that public confidence in the integrity of our judiciary is essential in maintaining the stability of our country and that nothing should be done to damage or  undermine that confidence. Indeed, quite unlike the political and administrative arenas, polluted by a long and depressing history of corruption, the country can be proud of the unblemished record set by our judges going back to colonial times. This is one achievement that our people can genuinely boast about, even if we may, from time to time, have misgivings about the expertise and legal acumen of persons appointed to the Bench or disagree with some of their decisions.

It seems to us that, instead of imposing integrity obligations on our judges, the administration should be more concerned with ensuring that these judicial officers are adequately remunerated and enjoy conditions commensurate with their elevated and dignified status. As a result of these considerations, it is our view that both the government and the opposition should meet to resolve this matter, which would require an amendment to the law excluding judicial officers from the list of persons in public life having to declare their assets. It is not that we feel judges should be “holy cows,” but, as we said before, they comprise a special group whose particular function, independent status and impeccable record of service do not warrant such an obligation.