Topic Guide: Judicial Corruption

Adherence to universal standards of due process and due diligence found in international human rights conventions can help ensure that cases flow through the justice system free of corruption. Where these standards are not observed, a range of anti-corruption tools can also bolster integrity and accountability in the judicial sector. An effective approach to countering corruption within the judicial sector integrates anti-corruption tools within broad structural reforms of the judiciary. This enables anti-corruption efforts to be mainstreamed and part of technical reforms within judicial institutions.

Control or oversight mechanisms can be integrated into the judicial system. Civil society involvement or layperson representation on judicial appointments bodies can open the process to greater scrutiny. An electronic case allocation system can randomly assign cases so that pliant judges are not cherry-picked to hear particular cases. An electronic case management system can provide oversight of the progress of cases through the courts and identify irregularities. Official complaints mechanisms can receive complaints from court users about judges or court officials. Court user committees can be established so that courts can get feedback on the effectiveness, efficiency and integrity of their work.

Human resources management tools can be applied to the judiciary to increase transparency and accountability. Recruitment standards for judges and other court officials can help ensure that appointments are made on merit through an objective and transparent process. Security of tenure guaranteed for a period of time can contribute to promote judicial independence. Objective criteria for judicial transfers can ensure that independent judges are not punished and dispatched to remote jurisdictions. Cases should be assigned to judges based on clear and objective criteria to prevent case allocation on the basis of political considerations or private interests. Judges and judicial officials should enjoy adequate salaries and good working conditions protected by law so that salary and working conditions cannot be used to punish independent judges or reward judges who rule in accordance with government interests.

Providing judges with regular training throughout their careers helps to promote high standards of professionalism. Training programmes can cover ethical issues, including how to handle ethical dilemmas. One effective training mechanism can be the facilitation of peer-to-peer mentoring and exchanges of experiences and good practices across countries as judges may be more open to discussing ethical issues with their peers from other countries.

Internal disciplinary mechanisms can contribute to safeguarding judicial integrity. Judges and other judicial officials should be required to sign codes of conduct and conflict of interest policies. In connection with this, the regular submission – and verification – of asset and income declarations is essential. A body dedicated to verifying income and asset declarations of judges, other senior judicial officials and their families can ensure that judges’ conflicts of interest are identified. An independent body needs to investigate allegations made against judges or breaches of the code of judicial conduct and give reasons for its decisions. Strong whistleblowing policies and effective complaints mechanisms should also be in place to ensure safe reporting of corruption and other misconduct. At the same time, judges have the right to a clear, transparent and fair disciplinary process, due process and appellate reviews in any disciplinary matters. Judges should be represented by independent judges’ associations that can support judges on ethical matters.

Transparency tools can require judges to publish their decisions and require courts to improve access to information on how courts function as well as the progress of individual cases. Judges should also have easy access to information, legislation, cases and court procedures, and parties using the courts need to have access to information on due process rights and the nature of their rights during and after court proceedings. Simple tools, such as posters displayed in courts stating the costs of court fees, can minimise the risk of unscrupulous court officials demanding unauthorised fees. Journalists should also be able to report freely and fairly on legal proceedings as well as suspicion of corruption or undue influence in judicial processes.

The publication of publish contracts and procurement documents can enable civil society, the media and court users to oversee court budgets and help to implement budget tracking tools. Capacity development for civil society organisations can allow them to train citizens in budget literacy so that judicial budgeting can be understood and checked.

Corruption risk analyses can help identify and understand the behavioural and institutional factors that facilitate corruption. Research, including indices measuring corruption and reports on levels of corruption, can inform reform efforts and put pressure on judicial actors to behave with integrity.

Court monitoring programmes by international organisations, donors or civil society organisations can assess whether there are irregularities in judicial decision making. Judges enjoy wide discretion in their decision making and sometimes it will not be clear if a judge is acting corruptly or if he/she is honest but incompetent. Court monitoring will not necessarily detect corruption but it can indicate problems in courts that require further investigation.

Journalists trained in reporting legal issues and aware of both the evidence required to bring proceedings against the corrupt, as well as the pitfalls of reportage that can lead to the collapse of cases, can be instrumental in both uncovering corruption cases in society and holding courts to account. Judicial bodies, civil society and donors can undertake integrity reviews of the judiciary to ascertain whether they meet internationally agreed standards such as the Bangalore Principles for Judicial Conduct. Service delivery surveys may also be used to assess the satisfaction of court users with access to justice and the resolution of their legal affairs.

Public information campaigns can make citizens and court users aware of their rights and what they can expect from courts. Such campaigns can help court users to resist paying bribes or unauthorised fees to access court services.