Maravi

Our judiciary and criticism

Our judiciary and criticism
By The Editor
Sat 21 Aug. 2010, 04:00 CAT

We cannot call others to virtues which we ourselves do not make an effort to practice.

It is very easy to accept criticism and defend it when it is targeted at other people and act very differently when the same is aimed at oneself. But let’s allow dignity and decorum, courage and manliness, spirit and honesty to take the floor. Let criticism of defects be a constant and be directed at all alike.

If we have shortcomings, we should not be afraid to have them pointed out and criticised, because we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may point out our shortcomings. If he is right, we should correct them. If what he proposes will benefit the people, we should act upon it. We should allow ourselves to be taught by mistakes and setbacks. We will become wiser and handle our affairs better if we open ourselves to criticism and allow it to flourish. It is hard for anyone to avoid mistakes, but we should make as few as possible. Once a mistake is made, we should correct it, and the more quickly and thoroughly, the better.

But there is a difference between a mistake and deliberate action. It is much easier to accept criticism of one’s mistake, a mistake that arises from oversight. But it is not that easy to accept criticism that arises from one’s deliberate action to do that which he knows is wrong and goes and does it because in one way or another, it is beneficial to him or members of his league.

And when it comes to criticism of state institutions and public officers, no one has the monopoly of doing so. All citizens have that divine right to criticise the decisions, actions and inactions of their public officers, of those who receive a salary from taxpayers’ contributions. Every taxpayer is a master of every public officer who receives a salary from his taxes. And here there can be no special qualification for one to be allowed to criticise public officers. And we should remind ourselves of the views that were expressed on this score by Queen Elizabeth: “No section of the community has all the virtues, neither does any have all the vices. I am quite sure that most people try to do their jobs as best as they can, even if the result is not always entirely successful. He who has never failed to reach perfection has a right to be the harshest critic. There can be no doubt, of course, that criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life. No institution – city, monarchy, whatever – should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don’t”.

And it doesn’t matter whether one is a president, a priest, a judge or magistrate, a king or a chief, an editor or reporter of a newspaper – all should accept to be subjected to criticism because criticism is good for public institutions and individuals. We did not say that criticism is nice, we said it is good. It is not pleasant to be criticised but it is necessary. Criticism can be very painful and can cause sleepless nights. If one is honest with oneself, one will try to examine every criticism and try to find out what earned them that criticism and whether it is valid or not. If criticism is valid, it should be made without delay.

An honest and humble reflection over criticism that we receive would teach us something regardless of the intention of a critic. There is something to be learnt by listening to others, not just those who make sense. Even those who don’t make sense need to be listened to because their nonsense might teach us what to avoid if we do not want to become nonsensical like them.

It doesn’t make sense to let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled criticism because the person involved is an old acquaintance, a fellow tribesman or townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. It doesn’t also make sense to touch on the matter slightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the institutions and the individual are harmed if criticism is withheld for any of such reasons.

It doesn’t make sense to let things drift simply because they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek to avoid blame. It doesn’t make sense to indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity. It doesn’t make sense to hear incorrect views without rebutting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing has happened. It is betrayal to see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. And it doesn’t also make sense to be aware of one’s own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself.

We accept that it is not hard for one to do a bit of good. What is hard is to do good all one’s life and never do anything bad, to act consistently in the interest of the great masses and to engage in a arduous struggle for decades on end. That is the hardest thing of all. And we should bear all this in mind when we make criticism of others.

We ourselves are not strangers to criticism. We are criticised and sometimes very strongly and unfairly so by people who come to us asking us to convey their views and their news. We cover them and on some occasions use our right to defend ourselves in our comments. With that experience, we know that criticism is rarely a nice thing. But we have learnt that it is always good for our institutions and ourselves as individuals. We say this bearing in mind that criticism forces the criticised to stop, think and reflect on what is being said. This constant reflection is what results into growth and improvement - and can also act, and it should do so, as an effective engine for change of behavior.

Some of our people may feel that commenting on what we consider the grave errors and unbecoming practices that have beset the judiciary is wrong. We do not agree. We, like all our people, have a duty to communicate the truth of our feelings and observations to those that exercise public functions on our behalf. The judiciary is not an exception and should not be. We understand that our brothers and sisters who perform those very difficult functions may not always appreciate criticism of their decisions and conduct. But that is not the point. They are not criticised so that they accept and appreciate the criticism. We don’t expect them to enjoy the criticism and praise their critics. But the truth is, we will do ourselves, the nation and even themselves a great disservice if we joined in a conspiracy of silence when things are going horribly wrong. It shouldn’t be forgotten that it was this same critical spirit that helped bring out the corruption and abuses of office by the former chief justice Matthew Ngulube. Ngulube was drinking from a poisoned chalice of Frederick Chiluba. And knowing what we now know, can anyone expect the Zambian people to accept the favourable decisions Chiluba got from Ngulube and those who were under his supervision and direction? The judiciary, like all other institutions of our state and civil society, is not run by angels who don’t need to be checked or to be corrected.

What is unfortunate about this whole Chiluba matter, is that, whether the judiciary like it or not, they are on trial. At the time that the offences that Chiluba is facing in court were being committed, Ngulube, the then Chief Justice of our country, was on Chiluba’s corrupt payroll. It could be said, with some justification, that Chiluba had the judiciary in his pocket. This is the difficult matter that the judiciary has to face. When we criticise, we always have in mind a troubled feeling that this very important institution of our country has been discredited and disgraced. We cannot do without a good judiciary because that is a recipe for anarchy. In the situation where we find ourselves, those who run the judiciary need to do more to restore the dignity of this very important state institution. We are worried because we observe a certain naivety, if not carelessness and arrogance about the way the judiciary is viewing the public incredulity. If the judiciary was listening more to the criticism, they might realise that those that are criticising them are not malicious but have legitimate basis for distrusting their own judiciary. How many chief justices in the Commonwealth have had to step down because of receiving bribes? There is a crisis of confidence surrounding the relationship between the judiciary and the presidency. And this is not without cause.

Against this background, one needs to understand why decisions of our courts are being held to a much higher level of scrutiny than would probably be the case. Moreover, what has the judiciary done to repair or mitigate the damage done to its credibility by Chiluba? This is the judiciary whose standing was brought down by Chiluba and it is still today being pushed deeper and deeper into discredit by the same Chiluba. What does our judiciary owe Chiluba? We would like to believe that they owe him nothing, except justice like all of us.

But this apparently careless approach to cases that have done more damage to the judiciary than can ever be calculated is a worrying indication of naivety.

Our people are not criticising the judiciary because they don’t want to respect them, the criticism is because there are a lot of things that do not appear right in our judiciary. The judiciary would do well to dispassionately analyse all the criticism. It might do them some good.

Labels: JUDICIARY

posted by MrK @ 5:40 PM