Today’s topic for discussion and reflection singles out The Bangalore Principles of Judicial conduct as revised in 2002. We are here referring to The Bangalore Principles under the auspices of the United Nations; and furthermore, their thereafter; where have these principles led us? where can they lead us?
These principles lay down six values at the core of judicial legal and ethical standards, namely independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, and competence, coupled with diligence.
The independence of the judiciary is an essential element for the proper functioning of the Rule of Law. Its operational standards set the tone of the public’s trust in the administration of justice.
In a democracy, the Courts are a nation’s legal and moral compass, anchoring democracy, safeguarding rights, shaping a collective national conscience if the identity kit of the Judiciary is grounded in conduct advocating, accountability to the sovereignty of the people, and mutual respect and harmony as part of the overall functioning of State organs – paradoxically, prima facie, this may sound as going against the principle of independence.
The principle of equality acquires added significance in David vs Goliath situations. No government, however strong is stronger than the populace which exercised its sovereignty when it elected it. The democratic and human rights of citizens in the face of the state, have in many instances evolved as a result of an interpretative application of existing laws in line with philosophical, political and social realities.
Diligence and competence cannot be underestimated; they are the tools that breathe life into statute books. They are at the root of the public trust in the courts, safeguarding the protection and enforceability of rights, moral ethics, norms crystallised into laws safeguarding collective and individual rights.
This function of the judiciary cannot be over-emphasised. By confronting the realities shaping people’s lives, judgements keep the Courts alive and vibrant, a powerful beacon of hope, a sanctuary for the vulnerable, firm in the face of violence, abuse and exploitation, affirming the rights of those who need most protection.
This is why, of the six values enunciated in the Bangalore Declaration, I have singled out paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of the Sixth Value titled Competence and Diligence.
Paragraph 6.3 states that a judge should take “reasonable steps to maintain and enhance his knowledge, for the proper performance of his duties”. Paragraph 6.4 specifically lays down that a judge “shall keep himself or herself informed about relevant developments of international law, including international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms.”
The present-day realities with technological and scientific developments, necessitate contemporaneous interpretation and application – an adaptive approach, although still grounded in fundamental principles.
This is one way in which the Principles of the Bangalore Declaration have a thereafter. This is the way forward if the judiciary is to be looked up to by the people as their bulwark against oppression in its traditional, ancient and past interpretations, as well as new nuances born out of the continued and continual development of humanity’s propensity for creativity and innovation. Humanity’s genius signals the need of genius in the judiciary!
Other “values” laid down by the Bangalore Declaration already mentioned above, independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety are indispensable if the people are to have trust in the judiciary. Being at a higher level than the rest of the populace, if the populace is to look up to them, judges should strive to be above reproach – as much as possible – not only in substance but also in comportment.
The Code of Ethics for members of Malta’s Judiciary issued by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, pursuant to Article 101, A(11) (D) in fact incorporates the core values enunciated by the Bangalore Declaration. But more than this, in reality, this Code has codified rules of conduct which have been practiced and upheld by the Maltese Judiciary for long years. In addition to this, I feel I have to single out for special consideration the oath of office that new entrants to the Judicial Body have to take according to the Constitution.
Laid down in Article 10 (1) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure, it has remained unchanged in substance for long years, long predating even Malta’s Independence in 1964, and it expounds in clear language behaviour which amounts to breaches of independence and impartiality.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Judge Anthony Abela, the first Commissioner for Standards of the Judiciary requested the President of the Republic of Malta to address today’s meeting. He gave specific instructions that the President’s contribution should not exceed five minutes, and that it has to be brief and schematic. I have done my utmost to abide by the diktat of the disciplinarian.
At this juncture, before concluding, however, it is pertinent to point out that by virtue of Article 31 of the Code of Ethics for Members of Malta’s Judiciary, “anyone occupying the Office of Commissioner for Standards of the Judiciary under Article 101 AA of the Constitution of Malta, is bound to conform to the standards laid down in the Code of Ethics and the same provision 31 lays down that breach of the sections mentioned in this paragraph is considered misconduct for the purpose of Article 101A(4) of the Constitution of Malta.
Furthermore, the Oath of Office of the Commissioner for Standards explicitly states that the Commissioner for Standards shall perform his duties according to justice and right, diligently and honestly according to the Constitution of Malta and the Code of Ethics for the Judiciary. The disciplinarian is himself subject to the discipline that has to be observed by those who he is meant to keep in line.
After all nobody is, or should be, above the law!