The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has issued a public statement firmly rejecting allegations that it applies heightened scrutiny to disciplinary cases involving judges from particular courts, insisting that its procedures remain impartial and uniform.
The commission said its reviews of alleged misconduct are guided exclusively by the facts and evidence contained in formal complaints, underscoring that impartiality is maintained throughout the process regardless of a judge’s court affiliation. The statement came after reports circulated among the public suggesting that the commission devotes disproportionate attention to judges from certain jurisdictions. The JSC categorically denied such claims, asserting that its disciplinary procedures are consistent and grounded in constitutional and legal frameworks.
According to the commission, disciplinary investigations are initiated only after the facts raised in a complaint have been clarified and all necessary reviews completed. This process, it stressed, is applied universally without distinction between courts. It added that its focus in every case remains on the complaint and corroborating evidence, describing the dissemination of information suggesting otherwise, that investigations are triggered merely by a judge’s court affiliation, as irresponsible.
Reaffirming its mandate, the JSC highlighted its responsibility to foster a judiciary that commands public trust and delivers justice in its fullest form. It underlined that judicial officers must uphold fair trial standards and ensure the timely administration of justice. In support of this mission, the commission explained that its daily work encompasses reviewing complaints lodged against judges, assessing judicial performance, providing training where necessary, safeguarding the security of judicial officers, and verifying that administrative arrangements related to judicial work are properly established.
To provide context to the scope of its work, the JSC released figures on disciplinary complaints filed during the current year. It reported receiving 176 complaints of alleged judicial misconduct, of which 57 were deemed suitable for investigation. Following these inquiries, six judges were found guilty of misconduct and subjected to disciplinary action. The commission noted that this figure represents 3.4 per cent of the total complaints submitted, underscoring that confirmed cases of misconduct constitute a small proportion of the overall caseload.