The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has denounced the inappropriate criticism of judges that occurred during the election season last year, claiming insulting and destructive remarks were made about the judiciary in general, as well as some Supreme Court and High Court judges.
Last year, over 100 election petition cases were filed in
court, some of which concerned challenges to the acceptance of nomination
papers of various candidates in the Nomination Court where some litigants who
lost their cases alleged the courts had been captured.
Some of that criticism also came from judicial officers,
forcing the JSC to approach the Law Society of Zimbabwe, whose engagement
resulted in the amicable resolution of matters.
This was said by Deputy Chief Justice Justice Elizabeth
Gwaunza on Monday at the official opening of the legal year 2024 at the
Bulawayo High Court, who noted that judges had received unjustified criticism
from parties who would have lost cases in court.
Justice Gwaunza lamented that during the course of the
elections period last year, “disparaging and damaging remarks were made against
the Judiciary in general and some Judges of the Supreme Court and the High
Court.”
“The unwarranted aspersions stemmed from decisions which
the courts had made. Even more concerning was the fact that the disparaging
remarks were made by some members of the legal profession who are expected to
have known better,” said the deputy chief justice.
“The JSC engaged the Law Society. The engagement resulted
in the matters being resolved amicably.”
Justice Gwaunza said there have been instances where
litigants who lost cases went on a tirade, casting aspersions on the integrity
of the courts and the Judges.
“They raised unfounded allegations of corruption,
threatened, and attempted to intimidate judicial officers who would have made
decisions against them. At the last count, seven Judges had fallen victim to
the vile misinformation and attempted intimidation,” she said.
Justice Gwaunza said litigants should not use the media to
air their grievances as there were court processes if they were unhappy with an
outcome.
“The media is an important stakeholder in the dissemination
of critical information on the justice
delivery system to the public. They have reported on matters of public interest
arising from the operations of the courts, including the conduct of judicial
officers who are the custodians of the Constitution. The media is encouraged to
continue to report fairly on matters of public interest arising from and
affecting the justice delivery system,” she said.
Justice Gwaunza emphasised the importance of
constitutionalism, saying that it discourages “vexatious and unrelenting
litigation” by litigants whose conduct is aimed at undermining public
confidence in the independence and integrity of not only the judiciary but the
entire administration of the justice system.
“The respect for the rule of law and for the independence
of the courts demanded by constitutionalism requires that litigants should
comply with court orders and legitimately use the remedies put in place by the
law to challenge the unfavourable decisions of the courts,” said the deputy
chief justice.
“Appeal processes and complaints mechanisms are not
intended to be abused by litigants for selfish ends.”
Justice Gwaunza said the designation of appeal courts by
the Constitution arose out of a recognition of the fallibility of, and the
possibility of error on the part of, judicial officers and the need to put in
place effective remedies for correcting such errors.
“Section 164(3) of the Constitution provides that “an order
or decision of a court binds the State and all persons and governmental
institutions and agencies to which it applies, and must be obeyed by them”.
The deputy chief justice advised judges not to shy away
from making decisions on account of baseless complaints and allegations raised
against them by vexatious litigants.
“ Justice is not lopsided. It cannot be the norm that
justice can only be said to have been done when the disposition is inclined to
a particular outcome favoured by a litigant in question,” she said.
“It will be an affront to the doctrine of constitutionalism
and the essence of the rule of law if Judges were to allow themselves to be
intimidated by errant litigants who lose cases in court. In pursuing the
entrenchment of constitutionalism, the Judiciary thus notes that vexatious
litigation, unrestrained denigration, threats and spurious complaints against
judicial officers have no place in a country controlled by a constitutional
order.”
On that note, Justice Gwaunza said the judiciary will
continue to dispense justice in terms of the law, “impartially, without fear,
favour or prejudice.”
“The comments made herein are not in any way meant to
protect courts and Judges from fair scrutiny, comments and criticisms of their
judgments and decisions, because such criticism is a central element of a
constitutional democracy,” she said.
Constructive criticism of judges aimed at improving court
efficiency is encouraged, acknowledged Justice Gwaunza, but only if done with
decency and respect.
“The philosophy underpinning judicial constitutionalism is
that judicial officers are servants of the Constitution, as the upholding of
the values and the principles of the Constitution is a manifestation of the
realisation of the demands that the supreme law of the land places on the
people. Constitutionalism is realised through mechanisms set by the
Constitution itself and is as such an inherent aspect of the compliance with
the Constitution,” she said.
Justice Gwaunza also reminded judicial officers to make sure they make decisions expeditiously in accordance with the applicable law and the facts found proved. CITE
0 comments:
Post a Comment