The judiciary yesterday launched its revised code of ethics for judicial officers, which seeks among other things, to ensure integrity, impartiality and independence in upholding the Rule of Law.
At a ceremony held at the Pegasus Hotel to mark the launch, acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards said that the integrity of any judicial system, is largely dependent on the ethical standards to which it holds itself.
She said that these standards must be at the core of the judiciary’s ability to function effectively and deliver quality justice and by which its judges, magistrates and other judicial officers are to be guided.
The Chancellor said that “as unbiased interpreters of the law” and dispensers of “justice in a fair and transparent manner,” they ought to be guided by a body of ethics. She reasoned that if the judiciary is the legal and moral compass of society, then its members must live up to higher standards themselves.
“Public confidence in the justice system must be maintained,” she stressed. She said that judges and magistrates alike are accountable to the public they serve and are bound by the code and the oath they have taken.
The code identifies the core values of propriety, independence, integrity, impartiality, equality, competence and diligence and accountability.
In congratulating the local judiciary on the launch of its revised code of ethics, President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Justice Adrian Saunders, who delivered the feature address said that the implementation of the code demonstrates the judiciary’s steadfast commitment to the people of Guyana which it serves and to the rule of the law.
He said that with changing phases of the inevitable passage of time, ethical standards for judicial officers have not remained static. The CCJ judge said, too, that operating in the midst of a pandemic has forced judiciaries worldwide to rethink the manner in which justice-services are delivered, and is why this is an opportune occasion to have embarked on revising the code.
Media pressure
He further noted that increasing media pressure and public scrutiny constrains judicial conduct both on and off the Bench, while highlighting that this level of attention to the behaviour of a judge is understandable even in their private capacity since the conduct of a judge can have serious effects on the public’s perception of their impartiality.
Public confidence in the administration of justice, he said, can only be achieved “if we consistently conduct ourselves in an ethical manner in both our judicial and personal lives.”
Justice Saunders opined that the judiciary of Guyana “is committed to pursuing judicial excellence and to being a responsive institution.” The indications he said are evident and have been noticed by the Trinidad-based CCJ.
According to Saunders, he sees them in the “efficient” disposition of cases, the elimination of backlogs, the embrace and deployment of technological innovations, the premium placed on judicial training programmes and the employment of court annexed alternative dispute mechanism among others.
He said the establishment of a judicial code of conduct and the participatory manner in which the code was developed is yet another indication “of this impressive leadership;” while noting that every judiciary worth its “salt,” needs to develop and maintain a code of judicial ethics.
Such a code, Justice Saunders said, is symbolic of the maturity and willingness of the judiciary to commit to a set of principles which helps the Bench to supplement and give force to the judicial oath of office.
He went on to say that the code is a compact between the judiciary and society and that it sets out the standard of behaviour that judicial officers voluntarily establish for themselves and to which they invite the public to hold them accountable.
As an important accountability tool, he said that a code of conduct provides a mechanism through which it is possible to test the conduct of every judicial officer against a single, accepted and published standard.
Abiding
In her welcome remarks, acting Chief Justice Roxane George said that though simple, the ceremony was significant as it represented a public demonstration by the judiciary, of its “abiding commitment to upholding the rule of law.”
In 2003, the judiciary published its first code of ethics, but the Chancellor noted that there have since been global developments and change with the passage of time in different aspects of the judiciary, thus necessitating the revision of the code.
She said that while the code is not exhaustive, it does give a guide to all judicial officers in assisting them with ethical and professional considerations.
Chief Justice George said that the revision of the code was an initiative of the Chancellor Cummings-Edwards who appointed a committee of judges and magistrates to review and revise it.
The code espouses that propriety and its appearance are essential to the performance of all of the activities of a judicial officer; while stressing that a member of the Bench should avoid impropriety and even its mere appearance in all of his or her activities.
The code addresses social media responsibilities, citing that codes of judicial conduct and
ethics apply to the digital lives of judges and magistrates as much as to their real lives.
Against this background, the code notes that judicial officers, like every citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; but that they must always
conduct themselves in a manner which upholds the dignity of their office and maintains the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
According to the code, the way a judicial officer uses social media may have an impact on the public perception of all judicial officers and confidence in the judicial system; and so while judicial officers are not prohibited from engaging in the use of social media, they must maintain the integrity, decorum and dignity of their office.
The code notes that an independent judiciary is indispensable to impartial justice under the law and that a judicial officer should therefore participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct.
“He or she shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary in both its individual and institutional aspects will be preserved,” it says.
Meanwhile; in ensuring integrity, the code’s statement notes that integrity is necessary for the proper and effective discharge of the judicial function and that judges and magistrates must conduct themselves “respectfully and with integrity to maintain and enhance public confidence in the judiciary.”
As regards impartiality, it says that this is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office; and that it applies not only to the making of a decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
Meanwhile, it notes that ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.
On this point it notes that a judicial officer must be aware of and understand diversity in society and differences arising from various sources, including but not limited to race, colour, gender, religion, creed, national origin, culture, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
In addressing competence and diligence, the code advances these as prerequisites for the due performance of judicial office and notes among other things that the duties of a judicial officer are paramount and “take precedence over all other activities.”
Finally, in examining accountability, the code notes that despite the need to preserve their independence, judicial officers must be mindful that they are accountable to the populace they serve.
