Ombudsperson points at balloting flaws for lifetime judges of Supreme Court
By Gvantsa Gabekhadze
Tuesday, July 2
Georgian Public Defender Nino Lomjaria says that the first secret ballot in the High Council of Justice on June 20, an independent body in Georgia responsible for the appointment of judges, and observation of its results identified several problems and shortcomings, “which threaten the conduct of the process in line with high standards.”
The statement comes after the turmoil around the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court judges in Georgia, proposing a new bill by the Georgian Dream ruling party MPs and the recommendations of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe regarding the bill earlier this year.
Lomjaria also responded to the refusal of the High Council of Justice to provide information about judicial candidates to Transparency International – Georgia NGO.
“We believe that the above-mentioned is a serious problem and damages the entire process,” Lomjaria said.
Lomjaria stated that based on the law adopted on May 1, 2019, members of the Council should select judicial candidates according to the criteria of good faith and competence at every stage.
“The law does not provide for any mechanism for ensuring the above during the first ballot, but it indicates that the Council shall direct the process following a predetermined procedure. It should be noted that the Council has not developed any procedure that would ensure selection of judges based on the criteria mentioned above, which creates a situation where a candidate with better good faith and competence may be disqualified,” Lomjaria said.
Lomjaria says that the legislative framework, which provides for a secret ballot, does not require justification of a decision or does not allow it to be challenged, “which was evaluated negatively” by local NGOs, the Venice Commission, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the Public Defender of Georgia.
“The first secret ballot in the High Council of Justice for the selection of Supreme Court judges once again emphasized the weakness of the legislative framework and revealed challenges in practice.
Lomjaria stated that the 13 members of the High Council of Justice participated in the secret ballot on June 20. Each member had one ballot paper and 20 votes (in accordance with the number of vacancies).
She said that the observation of the ballot papers and counting process revealed 10 out of 13 ballot papers ticked under similar schemes and carrying a high degree of coincidence. Namely:
• 20 one and the same candidates out of total of 137 candidates were ticked in 4 ballot papers;
• 20 other one and the same candidates (not those ticked in the 4 ballot papers mentioned above) out of total of 137 candidates were ticked in 3 ballot papers;
• 15 candidates ticked in the 3 ballot papers indicated in the second paragraph, as well as 5 other candidates, were ticked in 2 ballot papers;
• 15 candidates, ticked in the 4 ballot papers indicated in the first paragraph and 5 candidates ticked in the 2 ballot papers indicated in the third paragraph, were ticked in one ballot paper.
“30 candidates received five votes out of these 10 ballot papers, four votes were received by five candidates and three votes – by 10 candidates (a total of 45 candidates). All of them qualified for the next stage. No similar coincidence has been discovered in other three ballot papers; the five candidates ticked in these ballot papers, who had not received any vote in the remaining 10 ballot papers, qualified for the next stage,” Lomjaria said.
She said that such a high degree of coincidence among the 10 ballot papers raises questions.
“It should also be noted that no mechanism for assessing the candidates’ honesty or competence has been developed for the above-mentioned stage of selection, whereas Article 18 of the Constitution recognizes the right of all citizens of Georgia to occupy a public position if he/she meets the requirements of the law,” Lomjaria said.
The Venice Commission released an evaluation on the bill by ruling Georgian Dream party MPs concerning the long-disputed issue of the lifetime appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Georgia in April 2019.
The report was made urgently by the commission after the appeal of former Georgian Parliament Speaker Irakli Kobakhidze, who was one of the authors of the bill.
Georgia requested the help after the controversial nomination of 10 judges for the Supreme Court by the High Council of Justice at the end of 2018.
NGOs, two members of the High Council of Justice and several MPs from the ruling party stated that the list included “biased judges.”
The Venice Commission had three top recommendations and said the High Council of Justice “enjoys fairly low trust by a large segment of society,” and the fact that the candidates for the Supreme Court will be nominated by the body “should be a matter of concern.”
The bill which was adopted is disliked anyway by the civil sector, “as it leaves room for biased judges stay in the system [with the help of the High Council of Justice].”
