Maravi

Sangwa calls for transparency, accountability in judiciary

Sangwa calls for transparency, accountability in judiciary
Written by George Chellah
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 3:43:01 PM

LUSAKA lawyer John Sangwa on Wednesday stated that the judiciary has been reduced to a secret society and judicial officers are portrayed as saints who do no wrong. In his letter dated June 30, 2009 to Chief Justice Ernest Sakala, which was also copied to the secretary Judicial Complaints Authority and the president of the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), Sangwa stated that he was saddened by the remarks attributed to the Chief Justice in the issue of The Sunday Post of June 28, 2009.

“… and that the complaint lodged with the Judicial Complaints Authority on my own behalf and on behalf of my clients became the subject of discussion during the Bar Bench meeting last week. Out of respect for the office of Chief Justice and the fact that the complaint is now before the authority I will not respond to His Lordship’s comments nor argue the merits of the complaint in the media,” read the excerpt from the letter.

He stated that there was however, one issue, which should not be glossed over.

“The idea that criticism of the judges and the judgments they deliver in the media by lawyers will undermine the standing of and people’s confidence in the judiciary is primitive, myopic and retrogressive. This notion has been perpetuated for many decades and lawyers, who are supposed to be critical in their thinking, have embraced it without question. Such thinking is not in aid of the judiciary but works to the detriment of the judiciary itself. The consequence has been that the judiciary has been reduced to a secret society and judicial officers are portrayed as saints who do no wrong. Very little of what goes on in the judiciary is known and those who know the wrongs that go on refuse to talk for fear of reprisals. What is however, forgotten is that judicial officers are public officers, subject to the law like any other citizen, and that tax payers pay for their salaries and other benefits,” stated Sangwa’s letter in part. “For that reason, like all other public officers, they should be accountable and open to public scrutiny. Anyone who is not willing to be subjected to public scrutiny and criticism should not accept employment in the public service. For decades the attention of the people has been directed at criticizing the President, ministers, members of the National Assembly and other people in public institutions but one very important and critical institution has been excluded: the judiciary. We ask of transparency from the President, ministers, members of the National Assembly and all other public officers, but we do not ask for transparency from the judiciary.

“In fact the judiciary deserves even greater scrutiny than any other public institution because of the enormous powers it wields. The judiciary has the power to review and nullify the actions of the President, parliament, the National Assembly, ministers and other public officers. But who is there to review the actions of the judiciary? As a nation we have expended our energies on peripheral institutions for far too long. Our main focus should be on the judiciary. Judicial officers have the power to shape our lives and the direction of this country. With that power there should be corresponding responsibility and accountability.”

He further stated that if, as was canvassed at the meeting, scrutiny and criticism would undermine the judiciary then the judiciary was staffed by wrong cadres.

“Criticism of the judiciary and the demand for transparency will not harm the judiciary but will be in aid of the judiciary. It is only when there is transparency in the judiciary and judicial officers pass public scrutiny that people will have trust and confidence in it,” Sangwa stated. “The people ought to know what goes on in the judiciary; how judicial officers are appointed, how they are elevated within the judicial hierarchy, how cases are allocated, how the judiciary as a public institution is managed and how judicial decisions are reached? Especially in the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort, a court which does no wrong and whose decision is final.

“Judicial officers cannot receive public funds and refuse to be accountable and transparent both in the discharge of the functions of their offices and the judgments they deliver. Shielding the judiciary from public criticism is no answer to judicial problems and challenges. Transparency and accountability are.”

Recently, Chief Justice Ernest Sakala described Sangwa's decision to report him and Lusaka High Court judge-in-charge Esau Chulu to the Judicial Complaints Authority (JCA) as unprofessional and most unacceptable conduct at the bar.

Officiating at the second bar-bench conference for lawyers at Protea Hotel in Chisamba last Friday, justice Sakala said Sangwa's letter was sub-judice as it was directly addressed to the judge dealing with the matter in question.

However, justice Sakala said he would not comment further although the matter was now in the public domain.

"Of late, my office received correspondence from a lawyer accusing me and judge-in-charge, Lusaka of meddling into the judicial independence of a judge in a matter involving the Subordinate court where there had been protracted delay in disposing of it," he said. "In fact, the lawyer's letter was subjudice as it was directly addressed to the judge dealing with the matter. This is unprofessional and most unacceptable conduct at the bar which should be condemned."

Last Wednesday, Sangwa reported justice Sakala and judge Chulu to the JCA for allegedly violating the Judicial Code of Conduct Act.

In a letter of complaint dated June 24, 2009 and addressed to the Secretary to the JCA on behalf of his clients, defunct Access Financial Services directors Aaron Chungu and Faustin Kabwe, Sangwa stated the details of the circumstances leading to his complaint.

And justice Sakala said the legal profession was one envied by many adding that lawyers should be proud of what and who they had chosen to be.

He urged them to strive and work towards making the legal profession a better institution to belong to.

Justice Sakala said integrity was an urgent and special matter and that preserving it must be at any cost.

He said it was no longer strange for a lawyer to address the media and insult the Judiciary that it was compromised.

"And one senior lawyer was, few days ago, reported as saying 'every institution in the country has been compromised by the MMD including the Judiciary where I belong. They can dismiss all my cases I do not care'," justice Sakala said.

"The question is; are they his cases or his clients' cases? If I was his client, I would immediately part company with such a lawyer."

He was impressed that Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) issued a very strong statement in defence of the Judiciary in reaction to some lawyers' complaint.

Labels: JOHN SANGWA, JUDICIARY

posted by MrK @ 2:43 PM