Topic Guide: Judicial Corruption

United Nations Convention against Corruption. United Nations, 2005. https://www.unodc.org/document...  

UNCAC introduces a comprehensive set of standards, measures and rules to strengthen countries’ legal and regulatory regimes to fight corruption. It calls for preventive measures and the criminalisation of the most prevalent forms of corruption in both public and private sectors. Article 11 specifically addresses measures to strengthen judiciaries’ ability to fight corruption. The convention also requires member states to return assets, obtained through corruption, to the country from which they were stolen.  

The Bangalore principles of judicial conduct. Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity, 2002. http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime...  

The principles establish six standards for the ethical conduct of judges. They are designed to provide guidance to judges and to afford the judiciary a framework for regulating judicial conduct. They are also intended to assist members of the executive and the legislature, and lawyers and the public in general, to better understand and support the judiciary.            

The Limassol conclusions on combating corruption in the judiciary. 2002. presented at Limassol Cyprus Conference 25-27 June 2002. http://www.cmja.org/downloads/...  

An eminent group of judges and judicial officials from the Commonwealth countries met in Limassol, Cyprus in 2002 and agreed a series of conclusions and recommendations to secure the independence of judicial officers and a judicial system free from corruption. The recommendations are directed at the judiciary, government and the legal profession as well as international organisations and NGOs.  

The Latimer House principles on the three branches of government. 2003. http://www.cmja.org/downloads/...  

The Latimer principles on the three branches of government set out the relationship between parliament, the judiciary and the executive in Commonwealth member countries and confirm the separation of powers as a fundamental principle of the Commonwealth. Among others, the principles provide mechanisms for safeguarding ethical governance and accountability (paragraph 2.3) and combatting corruption (paragraph 2.4). Within this framework, the Plan of Action for Africa and the Edinburgh Plan of Action reaffirm the importance of implementing the Commonwealth (Latimer House) principles for the accountability of and relationship between the three branches of government.  

Enhancing judicial transparency. Transparency International, 2007. Policy Position 01/2007. http://www.transparency.org/wh...  

Transparency relating to the judiciary serves to increase public knowledge about the judicial system, provides recourse for redress when problems occur and decreases the opportunities for corrupt practices. It is vital that appointments, complaints and disciplinary processes are transparent and objective, and that the public has a means of challenging decisions where they are unreasonable or improper. In addition, information on judicial conduct and discipline enables the public and civil society to act as a check against arbitrary executive interference.  

Judicial accountability and discipline. Transparency International, 2007. Policy Position 02/2007 http://www.transparency.org/wh...

The judiciary needs to be independent of outside influence, particularly of political and economic entities such as government agencies or industry associations. But judicial independence does not mean that judges and court officials should have free rein to behave as they please. Indeed, judicial independence is founded on public trust and, to maintain it, judges must uphold the highest standards of integrity and be held accountable to them. Where judges or court personnel are suspected of breaching the public’s trust, fair measures must be in place to detect, investigate and sanction corrupt practices.

Promoting decent judicial terms and conditions. Transparency International, 2007. Policy Position 04/2007 http://www.transparency.org/wh...  

The terms and conditions under which judges and court officials work are important for determining their likelihood to engage in corrupt practice. Judiciaries faced with low salaries, poor training and benefits, uncertain security of tenure, or sub-standard administration are unlikely to attract and retain high-quality candidates. Even where able judges and court staff are in place, poor terms and conditions can provide both incentives and opportunities for resorting to corruption. The security of tenure is an essential means of securing judicial independence but, more broadly, conditions of service should provide a professional environment that is a transparent, motivating and safe place for judicial officers to work.

Promoting fairness in judicial appointments. Transparency International, 2007. Policy Position 03/2007 http://www.transparency.org/wh...  

Where political power plays a significant role in the appointment, promotion and conditions of service of judges there is a risk that judicial candidates, as well as sitting judges, will feel compelled to respond positively to the demands of the powerful. Rather than act as a check on government or economic interests in protecting civil liberties and human rights, judges who have been appointed unfairly may be more likely to promote their own interests over the rights of the individual. Appointment procedures must therefore be transparent, fair and robust enough to ensure that only those candidates with the highest professional qualifications and standards of personal integrity are allowed to sit on the bench.