TI: Government didn’t show will to staff the Supreme Court with qualified individuals
By Inga Kakulia
Friday, September 13
Generally speaking, Transparency International views the open and public nature of the selection process and interviews as a positive development. “The general public has been able to see the real situation in the judicial system, as well as to assess the competence and integrity of both current judges and members of the High Council of Justice,” says the report.
None the less the report criticizes the process for not being inclusive enough, specifically, the lack of representatives of different judicial spheres, lawyers and members of the academic circles. The Transparency International report argues that the corporate nature of the court system is to blame.
“The process of selecting judges for the Supreme Court was based on new legislative changes drafted by Parliament, but the problem itself was in the about legislative regulation. The authorities, at the stage of drafting the legislation, did not show the political will to create the most competitive environment in the competition so that it would be possible to nominate decent candidates to parliament.”- states the report.
Transparency International also claims that the authorities did not take into the account recommendations of the Venice Commission and formed a list of candidates that was acceptable to the influential court group and the government.
Specific flaws of the selection process, which were ignored by the commission were also highlighted in the report. Despite the fact, that there was a need to replace 2 of the judges in the commission, Tamar Oniani and Irakli Shengelaia, whose relatives were amongst the candidates, they remained in the commission.
Another example was Zaza Kharebava, a non-judge member of the Council. It was established that Mr. Kharebava was nominated for the parliament by an unauthorized person in 2017, which provides grounds for immediate suspension but Kharebava continues partaking in the selection process anyway.
The report states: “This fact is especially interesting considering that if these three members of the board were to abandon the process, it would take considerable amount of power from the influential judges of the system, and there would be a possibility for consensus, with the participation of non-judge members who were more critical of the process, which would, in turn, reduce the chances of the outcome that we got on September 4th”
When the list of 20 people was formed, a portion of the original 10-person problematic list was re-entered and the names and surnames of the Attorney General and his deputy were added to that list. For most of this list, predictions were made in advance. The list mainly included influential judges in the system or their candidates and those close to the government.
Also, on the list were judges with questionable work, including possible corruption. It is also noteworthy that after the first relative vote, the Public Defender identified a scheme in which council members were likely to act in the decision-making process.
The report also focused on the lack of transparency about the background of the candidates.
To ensure maximum transparency of the selection procedure of the Supreme Court, the relevant law was written into the Organic Law. Including the obligation of the Supreme Court candidate to consent to the disclosure of information about him (including personal data other than health status). Coalition member organizations began requesting candidate information the very next day after the first secret ballot. The aim of the Coalition was to timely process and disseminate information obtained from the Justice Council before the interviews. Informing the public promptly was important before the interviews, to create a public image of people claiming to be on the Supreme Court. However, the Council of Justice initially refused to disclose candidate information for the sake of protecting personal data. This refusal was based on a misinterpretation of the Organic Law record, according to which the person only consented to the transfer/disclosure of information (including personal data of the person) to the Parliament of Georgia and not to the disclosure in general.
The Council of Justice decided to make the statements and attached documents submitted by candidates at the interview stage public only after hearing from the Public Defender and the State Inspectorate, regarding the importance of making the information publicly available throughout the process. The decision was made five days before the interviews, which was an unreasonable deadline for processing the information on the 50 candidates, which ultimately reduced the importance of publicizing the information.
“In view of the foregoing, it is clear that in the process of selecting judges of the Supreme Court, the authorities, at the stage of drafting the legislation, did not show the political will that they wanted to complete the Supreme Court with honorable and qualified staff. With the endorsement of the 20-man list, the risk of empowering the government and influential judges in the Supreme Court increases, ultimately leading to the prospect of a dignified justice system in the country.”- states the report inconclusive remarks.
Transparency International believes that predominantly candidate-predicted list suggests that the process was largely formal and did not address the gravest problems in the justice system. The report concludes that the legislative framework created by Parliament has once again allowed the High Council of Justice to pursue the interests of an influential group of judges and authorities, which ultimately aggravates the current state of justice in the country.