Stated Misbehaviour of a Member of the Judiciary: Constitutional Implications and National Consequences

Abstract

The integrity of the judiciary is the bedrock upon which the edifice of constitutional governance and rule of law rests. Allegations or instances of stated misbehaviour by member of the judiciary shake the public’s confidence, challenge the institutional sanctity of the justice system, and threaten the democratic foundations of the nation. This article explores the constitutional framework governing judicial conduct, delves into the meaning and scope of “stated misbehaviour”, and analyses the far-reaching impact of such conduct on the judiciary, the justice system, and national governance.

Introduction

The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, is expected to function independently, impartially, and with unimpeachable integrity. When a judge—especially from the higher judiciary—is alleged to have engaged in serious misconduct, the consequences transcend individual accountability. It becomes a constitutional crisis in microcosm, questioning the very standards that the judiciary is meant to uphold.
Understanding “Stated Misbehaviour”
The term stated misbehaviour originates from constitutional provisions relating to the
impeachment of judges. For instance, Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution provides that a judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from office by an order of the President passed after an address by Parliament supported by a special majority on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”. Likewise, Ghana’s 1992 Constitution provides that a Justice of the Superior Court or Chairman of the Regional Tribunal shall NOT be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incompetence or ground of inability
to perform the function of his office arising from infirmity of body or mind.

Nature of Misbehaviour

• Corruption
• Abuse of office
• Gross dereliction of duty
• Conduct unbecoming of judicial office
• Breach of judicial ethics or codes
‘Stated’ Misbehaviour
The adjective “stated” indicates formal recognition of the misbehaviour—either through
inquiry or impeachment proceedings. It requires proof and due process, not mere allegation or innuendo Constitutional Framework and Judicial Accountability
The Constitution guarantees judicial independence, but it also mandates accountability.
The balance is delicate:
• Independence without accountability breeds autocracy.
• Accountability without independence leads to judicial intimidation.
Mechanisms like the Judicial Inquiry, and in-house procedures aim to uphold this balance. However, these mechanisms are often criticized for being opaque, slow, or ineffective and even political.

Impacts of Judicial Misbehaviour

A. On the Constitution
Stated misbehaviour erodes constitutional morality. Judges are expected to act as sentinels
of constitutional values. When a judge is implicated in misconduct, it raises questions about:
• The fidelity of constitutional interpretation
• The legitimacy of judicial review
• The enforceability of fundamental rights adjudicated under tainted influence
B. On the Judiciary
• Erosion of Public Trust: Public confidence is the judiciary’s greatest asset. Misconduct
chips away at this trust, often irreparably.
• Peer Morale and Integrity: Ethical lapses by one member cast shadows on the entire institution, affecting morale and internal discipline.
• Undermining Judicial Independence: Misconduct invites external oversight or political
scrutiny, threatening the sanctity of judicial independence.
C. On the Justice System
Delayed or Compromised Justice: A compromised judge can tilt the scales, leading to miscarriage of justice.
• Loss of Credibility: Litigants may lose faith in court outcomes, leading to increased appeals and decreased voluntary compliance with judgments.
• Overburdening of Courts: Re-hearings or reviews due to compromised rulings increase
the systemic burden.
D. On the Nation
• Democratic Erosion: The judiciary plays a pivotal role in maintaining checks and balances. Judicial misbehaviour may facilitate executive overreach or legislative arbitrariness • Global Perception: Nations are judged by the strength of their institutions. A judiciary perceived as corrupt or compromised tarnishes the country’s global image, affecting
investment and diplomacy.
• Civil Disillusionment: When justice appears purchasable or partial, societal respect for
law declines, fueling cynicism, vigilantism, and unrest.
Remedies and Safeguards
a. Institutional Reforms
• Transparent Judicial Appointments and Disciplinary Mechanisms
• Strengthening In-House Accountability Procedures
• Time-bound Inquiry and Impeachment Processes
b. Cultural and Ethical Reinforcement
• Mandatory Judicial Ethics Training
• Annual Declarations of Assets and Interests
• Peer Accountability through Collegial Oversight
c. Public Participation and Media Vigilance While judicial independence must be protected, a free and responsible press, vigilant civil society, and well-informed citizenry play a role in ensuring judicial accountability.

VI. Conclusion

In conclusion, Judicial misbehaviour is not merely an individual lapse—it is a systemic tremor. While constitutional safeguards provide mechanisms to address it, they must be exercised with courage, transparency, and integrity. The ultimate goal must be to preserve the sanctity of justice, the integrity of institutions, and the constitutional promise of equality before the law.
As Justice Frankfurter once remarked, “The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself—and not what we have said about it.” Similarly, the touchstone of justice must always remain the conduct and conscience of those entrusted to deliver it.

Author:
AA TWUM-BARIMAH ESQ.
BARRISTER & SOLICITOR @ LAW