Skip to content 
Search

Latest Stories

Delivering a verdict on the importance of an impartial judiciary

by SAILESH MEHTA

“… I WILL do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will…” – this is the judicial oath taken by judges in England and Wales.


Similar oaths are taken by judges in many countries all over the world. It is a declaration of judicial independence and a promise to uphold the rule of law. The difficulty arises when the judge’s ruling clashes with the will of a politician, and such occurrences are becoming more frequent.

Last week, the supreme court of Sri Lanka reluctantly entered one of the country’s most controversial political storms. The president (Maithripala Sirisena) had sacked the elected prime minister (Ranil Wickremesinghe) and replaced him with a controversial former president (Mahinda Rajapaksa). When an attempt was made to allow parliament to vote on the matter, Sirisena dissolved parliament. In a ruling hailed as one of the most important in its history, the supreme court suspended that decision. It was aware of the constitutional and political importance of its verdict and yet made the correct judgment. This augers well for Sri Lanka’s democracy and its rule of law.

It is not unusual for judges to be called upon to solve political problems of the highest importance. Judges will say that they are simply interpreting the law, but their critics insist they are taking sides and thereby entering the political arena.

Chief justice David Maraga and three of his colleagues in the Kenyan supreme court ruled in September 2017 to annul an election whose winner (president Jomo Kenyatta) was the man who had appointed him. This was hailed as a courageous decision in a continent that has often dealt harshly with those that oppose entrenched power.

If there was any doubt that the appointment of judges is laden with political machinations, one only needs to look at the recent turmoil caused in the appointment of Brett Kavanagh to the US supreme court. The fact that the Republican party was willing to overlook significant personal flaws in the appointee shows how important politicians think it is to get “their man” into the post.

The state of the US supreme court is such that  commentators can (with a high degree of accuracy) predict any decision, based on which judges are going to vote. Many of the decisions are said to be entirely along “party lines”. That is why the gun lobby and the anti-abortion lobby (as well as the “do not impeach” Donald Trump lobby) were so keen to get Kavanagh on the bench.

However, the problem for politicians is that once judges are appointed, they often demonstrate an unexpected level of independence. Note the annoyance at the Donald Trump-appointed judge who ruled that a CNN journalist must be given back the White House press pass that the president took away without good reason.

The supreme court in India came for criticism recently from the religious right wing. In a landmark ruling, it decriminalised gay relationships, and wiped away entrenched Colonial-era legislation. Equally controversial was the lifting of a ban on female worshipers at Sabarimala temple, one of Hinduism’s holiest sites.

Death threats against judges are not uncommon. In Pakistan, the supreme court recently overturned the conviction (and therefore the death sentence) of Asia Bibi, a mother of three who allegedly blasphemed during a squabble with other villagers. In an analysis of the shockingly weak evidence against her (including a “confession” obtained by a crowd that had beaten the defendant) the court clearly came to the right decision, but received the inevitable criticism from religious zealots.

Judges in Europe have also been under great pressure recently. When they ruled that the UK government would require the consent of parliament to give notice of Brexit, the Daily Mail labelled the judges “Enemies of the People”. In Poland, a purge of its supreme court judges has been injuncted by the European court. In Hungary, the far-right president has chipped away at judicial independence. Such is the concern that Brussels has made it a condition of the receipt of billions of euros in hand-outs that a recipient country demonstrates a commitment to an independent judiciary.

Since the appointment of the first judges, there have been winners and losers in their courts. The winners praise the wisdom and fairness of the learned judge in interpreting the law, while the losers complain about the bias and ignorance of the judge. It was ever thus. It just feels that in these times of extreme ideology and unlettered leaders, the inevitable complaint of the losing side has become shriller and more sinister.

Sailesh Mehta is a barrister specialising in human rights and criminal law.

More For You

One year on, Starmer still has no story — but plenty of regrets

Sir Keir Starmer

Getty Images

One year on, Starmer still has no story — but plenty of regrets

Do not expect any parties in Downing Street to celebrate the government’s first birthday on Friday (4). After a rocky year, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer had more than a few regrets when giving interviews about his first year in office.

He explained that he chose the wrong chief of staff. That his opening economic narrative was too gloomy. That choosing the winter fuel allowance as a symbol of fiscal responsibility backfired. Starmer ‘deeply regretted’ the speech he gave to launch his immigration white paper, from which only the phrase ‘island of strangers’ cut through. Can any previous political leader have been quite so self-critical of their own record in real time?

Keep ReadingShow less
starmer-bangladesh-migration
Sir Keir Starmer
Getty Images

Comment: Can Starmer turn Windrush promises into policy?

Anniversaries can catalyse action. The government appointed the first Windrush Commissioner last week, shortly before Windrush Day, this year marking the 77th anniversary of the ship’s arrival in Britain.

The Windrush generation came to Britain believing what the law said – that they were British subjects, with equal rights in the mother country. But they were to discover a different reality – not just in the 1950s, but in this century too. It is five years since Wendy Williams proposed this external oversight in her review of the lessons of the Windrush scandal. The delay has damaged confidence in the compensation scheme. Williams’ proposal had been for a broader Migrants Commissioner role, since the change needed in Home Office culture went beyond the treatment of the Windrush generation itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Eye Spy: Top stories from the world of entertainment

Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh

Eye Spy: Top stories from the world of entertainment

Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh’s ‘Sapphire’ collaboration misses the mark

The song everyone is talking about this month is Sapphire – Ed Sheeran’s collaboration with Arijit Singh. But instead of a true duet, Arijit takes more of a backing role to the British pop superstar, which is a shame, considering he is the most followed artist on Spotify. The Indian superstar deserved a stronger presence on the otherwise catchy track. On the positive side, Sapphire may inspire more international artists to incorporate Indian elements into their music. But going forward, any major Indian names involved in global collaborations should insist on equal billing, rather than letting western stars ride on their popularity.

  Ed Sheeran and Arijit Singh

Keep ReadingShow less
If ayatollahs fall, who will run Teheran next?

Portraits of Iranian military generals and nuclear scientists, killed in Israel’s last Friday (13) attack, are seen above a road, as heavy smoke rises from an oil refinery in southern Teheran hit in an overnight Israeli strike last Sunday (15)

If ayatollahs fall, who will run Teheran next?

THERE is one question to which none of us has the answer: if the ayatollahs are toppled, who will take over in Teheran?

I am surprised that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has lasted as long as he has. He is 86, and would achieve immortality as a “martyr” in the eyes of regime supporters if the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, succeeded in assassinating him. This was apparently Netanyahu’s plan, though he was apparently dissuaded by US president Donald Trump from going ahead with the killing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Comment: Talking about race isn’t racist – ignoring it helped grooming gangs thrive

A woman poses with a sign as members of the public queue to enter a council meeting during a protest calling for justice for victims of sexual abuse and grooming gangs, outside the council offices at City Centre on January 20, 2025 in Oldham, England

Getty Images

Comment: Talking about race isn’t racist – ignoring it helped grooming gangs thrive

WAS a national inquiry needed into so-called grooming gangs? Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer did not think so in January, but now accepts Dame Louise Casey’s recommendation to commission one.

The previous Conservative government – having held a seven-year national inquiry into child sexual abuse – started loudly championing a new national inquiry once it lost the power to call one. Casey explains why she changed her mind too after her four-month, rapid audit into actions taken and missed on group-based exploitation and abuse. A headline Casey theme is the ‘shying away’ from race.

Keep ReadingShow less