Imagine a scenario where the very person who appoints judges is then brought before them in a court case. Can those judges truly be impartial? This question of executive power, specifically the president's role in appointing judicial and constitutional officers, sparks intense debate worldwide.
During the Fiji Law Society Convention in Nadi, Ugandan Supreme Court Justice Mike Chibita highlighted this critical issue. He pointed out that discussions often revolve around the perceived excessive power vested in the president, particularly concerning judicial appointments. "They talk about how the president has too many powers because the president appoints the judges," Justice Chibita stated. But here's where it gets controversial... Can judges appointed by the president fairly rule against that same president if a conflict arises?
The concern extends beyond the judiciary. Justice Chibita also raised questions about the impartiality of Electoral Commissions, where the chair is often appointed by the president. "The question is always asked, can such an Electoral Commission actually conduct free and fair elections where the appointing authority is involved?" This is a valid concern. If the person overseeing elections owes their position to a particular leader, can we truly trust that the process will be unbiased?
The ideal, of course, is that the three arms of government – the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary – operate independently. The judiciary, in particular, must be free from influence from both the executive branch (headed by the president) and the legislature (parliament). This separation of powers is a cornerstone of democracy, designed to prevent any single entity from accumulating too much control. And this is the part most people miss... it's not just about preventing corruption; it's about safeguarding the very principles of fairness and accountability.
Justice Chibita acknowledged the extensive debate surrounding the appointment of judicial officers across various jurisdictions. He noted that while parliamentary judicial commissions exist, ultimately, the president typically holds the appointment authority. But is this the best system? Are there truly no viable alternatives? Some argue that giving more power to judicial commissions, perhaps with a more diverse representation beyond parliament, could lead to a more independent and impartial judiciary. Others suggest a system where judicial appointments are subject to rigorous parliamentary review and approval, ensuring greater transparency and accountability.
This raises a fundamental question: How do we balance the need for an efficient and effective government with the imperative of maintaining an independent and impartial judiciary? Is the current system, where the president holds significant appointment power, inherently flawed? Or are there sufficient checks and balances in place to prevent abuse? What alternative approaches could be implemented to ensure a more independent and accountable judiciary? What are your thoughts? Do you believe that presidential appointment of judges inevitably leads to bias, or can a system be designed to mitigate this risk? Share your opinions in the comments below!
