JSC at critics: There will be no action based on a judge’s identity or their court

Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has clapped back at critics, citing that the Commission does not investigate judges for misconduct based on their identity or because they sit in a specific court.

The criticism towards JSC comes following its decision to launch disciplinary proceedings against five of the eleven sitting High Court judges.

The decision has been criticized by former Supreme Court judge Husnu al Suood and main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), which have described the move as a planned attempt at controlling courts.

JSC responded to the criticism via statement on Friday night, citing that the Commission does not prioritize a specific course of action when investigating disciplinary cases filed with the Commission based on which court a judge serves in.

The Commission emphasized that it has only proceeded with investigations into disciplinary cases against judges after verifying the information in the complaint and other relevant matters.

“This is proven the Commission’s statistics. While 176 disciplinary cases were filed with the Commission so far this year, the Commission only proceeded with investigations in 56 cases. Action has only been taken against six judges after allegations were proven during disciplinary proceedings. This accounts for just 3.4 percent of the disciplinary cases that were submitted,” the statement read.

JSC said this established policy on investigating disciplinary cases against judges has only led to actions against six judges following investigations – a small amount compared to the number of complaints filed with the Commission.

The Commission also stressed that, when deciding whether to investigate disciplinary cases against judges, it prioritizes the complaint and the evidence submitted — not the judge’s identity or the court in which they serve.

As such, the Commission described spreading misinformation in a way that implies it is giving priority to disciplinary investigations against certain judges from a particular court as irresponsible.

“While the Commission is responsible for ensuring that the Maldivian judiciary earns public trust and delivers justice effectively, all judges sitting in judicial courts must conduct trials in a way that is impartial, efficient and upholds justice,” the statement read.

JSC emphasized that it is working to ensure judges’ impartiality through disciplinary complaints, monitoring their work quality, offering training, and ensuring their safety and security.

For this purpose, the Commission stated that it is taking all necessary measures and ensuring that all administrative arrangements related to judges’ work are properly in place every day.