Judiciary: Take Hon. Tundu Lissu seriously on judges

EDITOR, the Guardian

On July 13, this year, the official opposition camp criticized the process of appointing judges of the high court and court of appeal when it presented its views about the budget estimates for the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.

In a speech read by official opposition whip Tundu Lissu, Singida East, the opposition faulted the vetting process used in scrutinizing judges before their appointment, adding that it lacks credibility and seriousness.

The august Parliament was told that because of poor vetting, there were some incompetent judges who don’t deserve to serve at the high court as well as court of appeal.

The official opposition camp also claimed that it was unconstitutional to extend the contract of judges who had since retired after reaching the mandatory retirement age, implying that the process was rampant within the judiciary circles.

Parliament was told that, some judges had been involved in corrupt practices before their appointments, effectively putting their credibility into question.

And, since the vetting process was seriously flawed, these individuals are today serving as judges at both the high court and court of appeal.

Though the Attorney General, Judge Fredrick Werema, Deputy Speaker Job Ndugai and some Members of the Parliament from the ruling party, strongly attacked the official opposition camp especially Lissu, the allegations so raised remained very grave – and should be thoroughly investigated.

Finally, Lissu was ordered to submit credible evidence to back his grave allegations -- which he did. What’s needed is for Parliament to stop partisan politics and investigate thoroughly the serious allegations raised by the official opposition camp.

This is not a political battle between the ruling CCM and the opposition party, Chadema; this is about the credibility of one of the three estates of the State, so politics should be kept aside to ensure that a suitable investigation is conducted.

Having a judge who cannot write judgment in the language of the court—English—is a serious claim that shouldn’t be taken politically. Or having a judge serving at the high court or court of appeal but who was previously implicated or involved in corrupt practices is something that shouldn’t be defended by chest-thumping politicians.

Apart from being a Member of Parliament, Lissu is a learned lawyer and an advocate of the High Court of Tanzania and Court of Appeal, and therefore his claims should be taken seriously. Since he has agreed to provide evidence to back his claims, then Parliament as well as the government should treat him as witness or whistle-blower, not as a dangerous man whose motive is to undermine the credibility of the judiciary.

If some incompetent and corrupt people manned the Judiciary, then the truth about their appointment and vetting should be known through thorough investigation.

For instance appointing an individual who has only one or two years before reaching mandatory retirement age to be a judge is very unfair to the judiciary as well as the public. If that individual had all the qualities needed for the position, why was it delayed, in the first place?

We fully understand that the Tanzania judiciary has during the past five decades produced some of the best and competent judges, but in recent years there have been some serious allegations about the credibility and conduct of some of those appointed as judges of the high court and court of appeal.

Parliament as well as the government shouldn’t pretend to burrow their heads like the proverbial ostrich in tackling the grave allegations raised by the Singida East MP.

Rocky L. Crabb, a California based lawyer, writing about the qualities of a judge once said, “I was elected by the judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court to the position of commissioner in 2005, and since that time have worked hard to fulfill and exceed those expectations. I believe that I was elected only after I had established a 25-year reputation as a hard-working, fair, ethical and knowledgeable attorney with a certain amount of common sense.”

The qualities of a good judge include patience, wisdom, courage, firmness, alertness, incorruptibility and the gifts of sympathy and insight. In a democracy, a judge is accorded great respect by the state as well as its citizens.

He is not only permitted to assert his freedom and impartiality but also expected to use all his forensic skill to protect the rights of the individual against arbitrariness.

SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN (18/08/2012): http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=44917