Dignity of office?

• Somebody remind them

A judge should always behave in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the office and the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Global Code of Judicial Ethics 2015

Approved at the International Conference of Judicial independence

There are after all varying degrees of education and values among a country’s population, with resultant questionable professional standards. It is when officials in positions of authority and responsibility also subscribe to those questionable professional standards that the country is in trouble. Sadly, it appears to be an increasing tendency for these officials, persons you would think were educated and trained beyond such behaviour, to overstep their remit, and to do so in an exceedingly ill-considered manner. And most people love it. Which is probably why these officials do what they do, to play to the gallery, like the POTUS who shoots absurd Tweet, after Tweet, after Tweet, topping it with ‘Mission Accomplished!’ after a bombing spree.

In the recent exchange between the CJP and the minister of railways, if readers were able to retain their breakfast long enough to scroll down to the comments, they’d have found several ‘Shabaashes’ for the Head of the Pakistan Judiciary, and several comments expressing the wish that ‘May the Almighty Bless the CJP’. Amen. Although ‘May the judiciary rest in peace,’ would be more applicable.

In case it slipped his mind in the course of his jihad with the minister’s father, as mentioned by the CJP, one may remind the Honourable Chief Justice of Article 3.5 quoted above, which says that judges should always behave in a manner consistent with the dignity of the office and the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary. Although whether there is any dignity, impartiality, integrity and independence left in that branch of government, or any other, is debatable.

The chief justice also slipped up when he praised Lalu Prasad Yadav of India, and held him up as an example. The said Mr Yadav has been convicted of being implicated in three scams, and has recently been jailed for the third

Seeing that the minister of railways is a public servant, may one also remind him of general standards expected of a public servant? Those standards do not include boasting about who his father was. No one cares, or at least no one should care. The only recommendation required is that public servant’s own performance, which is what the CJP has been calling into question in such a refreshing manner.

The incident leads to some interesting points, namely the inability of the public to understand the difference between justice and interference. And the inability of both the public and the judiciary to appreciate the importance of due process.

While it is important for justice to be done, and what is as important, for justice to be seen to be done, the matter does not end there. A certain method must be followed by means of which an offender must be dealt with, following the prescribed procedure. This is called due process. If this is ignored it in itself leads to injustice.

The honourable chief Justice crossed several lines in the course of taking notice of the ministry of railway’s performance, when for example he said he was doing ‘jihad’ in this matter. No sir, this is not a personal matter, you are simply doing your job.

The CJP asked the minister if the court was supposed to allow the minister to remain in his office without contesting elections for twelve years.

It is not up to the honourable chief justice or the court to ‘allow’ a government official to be in office or not. It is up to the people who elect the government to deal with such matters. One expects the CJP to be aware of this.

The chief justice also slipped up when he praised Lalu Prasad Yadav of India, and held him up as an example. The said Mr Yadav has been convicted of being implicated in three scams, and has recently been jailed for the third.

Probably the CJP’s most vulgar stance was when he made oblique references to some place the minister had visited some days ago, to his ‘body language’ at that place, and the ‘type of tea’ he had there. Whither dignity of office?

He also accused the minister for not coming up to the standard of his father, and mentioned that he, the CJP and the minister’s father had ‘done Jihad together.’

The term jihad keeps cropping up. Where does it come into the matter of the performance of the Pakistan railways and its officials?